An interview with ... Paula S. Campbell 

Many people move to California. Paula Campbell is a rarer type: one who was born here but spent several years elsewhere, only to return with an enhanced appreciation of the Golden State. Her university studies and subsequent life in Boston, Mass., helped to bring out her love of learning—and of teaching; she student-taught in an all-girls Catholic school in one of the city’s rougher neighborhoods, an experience far removed from her childhood in affluent Marin County’s Mediterranean climate.

Instead of pursuing a teaching career, though, Campbell eventually returned to California with her husband, Stu, and they settled in Nevada City, a quirky Gold Rush town in the Northern Sierra where the young couple started a family. They have three children, Jessica, Chris and Stephanie. Each graduated from Nevada City public schools and from the University of California.

Paula became an active member of the community—volunteering in her children’s classes, winning election to her school site council and serving on the board of directors of a local cultural foundation. She also helped establish a private preschool and the Nevada City Schools Foundation, before being elected to the Nevada City School District board in 1992.

Campbell finds time in her busy schedule for gardening; she tells a moving story about an epiphany that struck her one spring day when she paused in her backyard:

“The phrase that came into my head was, ‘This is a moment of promise and grace,’ because I truly felt that I could see the potential and the grace in my garden. It was just a magical moment for me. And I stood back and appreciated it for a moment and realized that I really don’t grow anything. … All I do is create an environment in which this can happen. And that’s what we do with school. That’s what we do in school districts. I hope that school boards and administrators and administrative teams can appreciate the skill and expertise that comes into play when they create an educational environment in their school districts, and realize and appreciate that as a result of what they do, they have moments like this in school all the time. Parents have moments like this. Teachers have moments like this in school. And school board members have moments like this when they visit campuses, when they have students come and present for them.”

You have been a member of your local school board for 16 years. What changes, for the better and for the worse, have you seen in the overall structure of public school governance in that time?

In our district, we have seen a lot of changes in the education of our students. And I think that’s been for the good—especially the development of standards and acknowledgement that there needs to be articulation between standards, curriculum, staff development and an assessment system. As we were moving in that direction, our board was very involved in the decisions, and of course we were solidly supported by the state. We are really blessed in our district with wonderful teachers. We have very talented, experienced teachers, and I am grateful that they were very supportive of this change.

Our board decided that we really needed some dedicated staff development time as we were adopting standards and so, along with the teachers association, we decided that we would have a late start every Wednesday for a year. The teachers had two hours every Wednesday morning before the beginning of school to talk about the adoption of standards and how we would do that. They went through every standard one by one, grade by grade, and tweaked them here and there to make it work for us.

That was an interesting partnership, because the teachers were very excited about adopting standards. They were very supportive and they wanted to do it. They wanted to be very intimately involved in how that happened. And they needed the board to not only support their effort, but to get the support of the community, because the proposal for an early release or late start caused quite an uproar. So that was a very productive partnership, I thought, between the teachers association and the board, and it was very successful.

I think, over the years, our board became more skilled in governance issues. We became more skilled at being able to talk with each other at the board table in a productive kind of way, so that we can benefit from the viewpoints of other people. When I was first on the board—like a lot of boards—an issue would come up and each person would make a speech, and then we’d move on to the next person. Sometimes someone would pass, and then every once in awhile that person would vote no. Rather than conduct our meetings that way, I wanted to know why people felt the way they did. So it was a major culture change on our board, because when we first started talking to each other more, some members felt that they were being challenged, when really all the other board members were doing was trying to find out why they felt the way they did.

When I go to a board meeting, either my [local] school board meeting or a CSBA board meeting, I come prepared—and I come prepared to change my mind, every single time. So, if I’m going to change my mind about an issue, I really want to know why somebody else is taking the position that they are. And if their position is different than mine, I’d like to have an opportunity to make my case, but I’d also like to have an opportunity to find out something that I didn’t know before.

I’ve worked with wonderful boards. We don’t squabble, and we all feel very strongly about having a good relationship with our superintendent. And I’ve been privileged to work with very talented superintendents, who also feel strongly about having a good and productive relationship with us. We just don’t have adversarial relationships. Just being able to talk to each other in a productive way has been invaluable. And our district really appreciates it. Especially our teachers association, because they know that they can come to a school board meeting and be part of a productive conversation about issues that are important to them.

We also do interest-based negotiations in our district, and that really has been transformative. It takes a lot of time for training. All the board members go through it, and the superintendent, and every person who is planning to be on the negotiating team for the teachers’ side. It’s built up a lot of trust between the district and the teachers association. Not only around issues about salary, but around any kind of issue that can come up around working conditions. And, you know, that could be practically anything in the district. I appreciate the process, and I’ve been the more or less permanent board member to attend those meetings … I just love it.

I’ve heard the term interest-based negotiation before, but can you explain what that is?

Interest-based negotiation is a process, and it’s also kind of a state of mind. The process involves identifying the interests of both sides. Once we list the district’s interests and we list the teachers association’s interests, we then find what we have in common. We usually have a significant number of interests that are in common, and we usually have very important interests that are in common, so that gives us a base for talking about the issue. We talk about options in a certain brainstorming kind of way—writing everything up, eliminating things that don’t quite make sense, and then talking about the ones that remain, and talking about how they meet the interests of both parties.

And around the issue of compensation—and really around most issues—we end up having a conversation about how the health and the survival and the success of the district is in the interest of both parties. Our teachers association has no interest in doing things in an irresponsible way financially, and the district has a huge interest in supporting the teachers financially and in making sure working conditions are such that they can do their job in the best way possible. We have those kinds of things in common. And so going through that process helps us to arrive at a solution that is of mutual benefit.

Did you go through the Masters in Governance program with CSBA?

Yes, I did. In the early ’90s, our district supported board members going to some other workshops for CSBA, so I went to a few when it was called the Masters in Boardsmanship. And then, after Masters in Governance was developed, I decided that I just really wanted to do that. I just think the world of that program, I truly do. I loved the conversation. I loved what I heard from other board members and superintendents. Our superintendent in Nevada City has gone through it as well.

I’ve already started to talk with the [Nevada] County School Boards Association to see if we can’t talk together and maybe even regionally in [CSBA] Region 4—it’s so large, I’m not quite sure how that would work—but maybe every district could pitch in just a little bit more money in [county association] dues and have a fund that would help support school board members who wanted to go through Masters in Governance.

Nevada County has quite a few districts spread across some rugged, rural terrain.

Nine elementary and one high school district. But we have a lot of ways in which we cooperate. For instance, there are two districts out in the [west county] area … they share a superintendent, a business official, a special education director and a special education secretary. And then each of the three schools has their own principal. This is the second or third year that they are going to do that, and that’s worked out well for them. We have a [joint powers authority] for transportation. We have a central kitchen run by Grass Valley [Elementary School District], and we get our lunches from them. Superintendents meet once a month, and so there are ways that we can get economies that you just can’t experience when you’re such a tiny district.

How does the county office of education figure into that?

The county office coordinates a monthly meeting of the superintendents in which they talk about large concerns that are of interest to everybody. It also gives the superintendents a forum in which to talk about ways in which districts occasionally knock up against each other, particularly around interdistrict transfers—refusing them or allowing them—and charter schools and things like that, that concern all of them.

As you mentioned, CSBA’s Region 4 is huge. What challenges or opportunities do you encounter in school governance in such a rural area?

Trustees in rural areas are challenged by the distance they must travel to attend conferences and training. This, combined with a lack of resources, means that trustees in rural areas must make an extra effort to make certain they are well trained in the roles and responsibilities of school board members. CSBA’s online trainings are tailor-made for rural trustees.

While rural communities have their fair share of controversies, schools enjoy solid support from their families and communities. We see this support from parent groups, volunteers, school foundations, churches and business. I am grateful for this involvement in my own district and know that this has enriched the school experience for all of our students.

Nevada County is among the counties that can tap into [funding from] the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act. There’s been trouble getting that funding extended. How could that situation be improved?

I think the educational community in California has done a wonderful job in advocating for Secure Rural Schools … and I know that when we have gone to Washington, D.C., both with [the National School Boards Association’s Federal Relations Network] and [CSBA’s Federal Issues Council], Secure Rural Schools is just right at the top of what we advocate for.

I think CSBA, and our larger region in Northern California, has been very effective in getting legislators to respond to this. I think the problem that we had the last several years has been that the [Bush] administration did not support it. There was a lot of support in Congress … but when we talked to the administration, they were not supportive. Their feeling was that regions that are dependent on Secure Rural Schools funding should encourage economic development to make up for the loss of that funding.

What they just would not recognize is that decisions were made over a hundred years ago that those regions would remain rural … and not developed economically. If we want to support having forest lands preserved in our state and in the West, then that’s the price that we pay—for schools, for clearing roads. You know, it’s not just schools that benefit from that.

Look at a county like Alpine County. It’s a very small population. They have about 120 kids in the whole county. They ride the bus forever to get to school—and they need safe transportation. And having Secure Rural Schools money not only supports the extensive bus system that they need to have, but it also supports clearing the roads of snow in the winter.

Of course, you pursued your own education in a far more urban environment, earning a B.A. in history from the University of Massachusetts. How did your liberal arts degree help you later in life?

I actually started out at U.C. Davis for 3½ years and then transferred to University of Massachusetts, Boston, and attended there for a year and a half, including the time that I spent earning a teaching credential. I was a history major by default. I took classes in just about every liberal arts area—English, history, social science—and finally had more history [credits] than just about anything else. I loved going to school. I loved the university. I just loved learning and reading and writing papers. I appreciated the space in my life where all I did was learn how to think.

Tell me about your student-teaching experience. How did that experience inform your understanding of the issues that are facing urban schools?

The program that I entered … required that I take summer courses in education. They were very theoretical—you know, the history of educational philosophy and things like that—which I thought was interesting, but certainly not in anyway practical. When I got to U Mass Boston, I don’t recall any practical education at all. What I recall is student teaching, and that was one semester long. We were only required to student-teach about eight weeks, but I student-taught most of the semester, because that was the only thing that made sense to me.

I loved creating lectures. I loved dealing with the subject matter. But at the end of the day, I didn’t feel prepared to deal with being a teacher. I knew the subject matter like any other enthusiastic student would, but I didn’t know enough about how to be a good teacher.

I think, although I haven’t gone through a teacher credentialing program in California … just having investigated a little bit, it is so much more thoughtfully done here. They put much more thought into teaching students how to be teachers. It’s a very special art and skill.

Given your experience student-teaching in Boston, what kind of an appreciation did that help you to develop then of the challenges that urban teachers face?

I spent a semester tutoring a girl who lived in Dorchester. And when I tutored her, I went into her house. My experience with her, and my experience with the girls in South Boston in the all-girl Catholic school where I student-taught, gave me an appreciation for the effects of poverty on the ability of these girls to spend time on their studies. A lot of them had jobs after school, because they were helping support their family. So they didn’t have the time and opportunity to devote to their studies that other kids would have. Their parents were very supportive. Their parents were sending them to a private, Catholic school. … So there was a commitment there on the part of their parents that was good.

And in Boston, in the schools where I was, and actually in Boston in general, we didn’t have the language issues that we have in California. The issues mainly involved poverty, ethnicity and race—those were the big issues for kids.

Those tend to be big issues still. Do you think that, in California, the situation with those issues has improved or deteriorated in the last 20 years?

I think that schools and government in general have become more aware of the issues around language and poverty and race. And I think schools have accepted the challenge that this presents to them.

I think now there’s a better appreciation for the fact that if you offer every child exactly the same thing, you’re not offering them an equitable education, because not every child needs the same thing. Children who are growing up in poverty have different needs from children who are English language learners. Children who have lived in only one culture their entire life and are now in a multicultural school need something different. Children with different learning styles need a different sort of education. Of course, students with special needs need a different kind of education. So I’ve seen, in the last 20 years, an appreciation on the part of school districts and the state and our broader educational community that we can’t offer every child the same thing. We need to offer them what they need in order to succeed.

What disturbs me frequently, especially now that everyone is talking about it, is high school reform. High school reform is so big and it’s so needed, but I think those whose conversation I’d like to join are also talking about middle school, because this issue starts in sixth grade.

I think part of the problem comes with the age of the students. They look practically like adults, except for their dress or hair, and I think that some people don’t acknowledge that these are children—these are students that we’re talking about, they’re our children. And we have as much of an obligation to make certain that they are successful in middle and high school as we do when they are in the third grade, when it’s much easier, because they’re so cute.

But when they get to be not quite so cute, it’s important to have an educational program that not only meets the standards that we’ve established in our state, not only equips them to pass the [California High School Exit Examination] and [Scholastic Aptitude Test] or whatever kind of college prep test they need to take, but that gives them a program that engages them.

Because if they’re not engaged in school for the most part, and happy with what they’re doing, and feel that what they’re doing is significant to their life—meaning that they are engaged in the program and they have adults around with whom they have a meaningful relationship—then kids lose interest. … I appreciate that the kids need to have discipline and there need to be consequences for bad behavior, but a consequence for bad behavior should not be that you’re kicked out of school. A consequence for bad behavior needs to be … a different kind of program where you can be successful.

And I think that when we move into middle school and high school, that’s where I feel this gap the most, between what we say we’re going to do and what we’re actually willing to do. As a state we say, ‘We want to educate every single child: every child with a disability, every child with a language issue, every child who is poor, every child who just moved to this country and just doesn’t know what it’s all about. We’re committed to every single child, but our programs are up here and our funding is way down here. [She holds one hand up high, one down low.] If we don’t make a commitment to close that gap, we can’t fulfill the commitment that we’ve made to the children of this state.

People will talk about waste and efficiency. I’m sure everybody can be more efficient, and you’re always going to find something that you can get rid of if you look hard enough, but we know that in this state we have fewer counselors, fewer librarians, fewer administrators, fewer teachers—which means we have fewer adults with whom students can form meaningful relationships in order to help them be successful in school. And until we change that, there are going to be kids who are going to be dropping through the cracks.

CSBA and [the Association of California School Administrators] have been involved in Learn More California to foster a dialogue within local communities about what is needed to educate our students and how to pay for it.

I’ve gone to the training … I really appreciated the training, and I think that having this partnership with ACSA will be very productive, because school board members and administrators together can conduct forums in their local communities that will not only help explain their local district to their local community and help bond people of significance in their community to their local district and how it’s run. It also, of course, helps develop the political will around adequacy.

I think that the huge budget problem that we’ve had in California … came at a particularly harmful time for education, because we just had this head of steam worked up about the “Getting Down to Facts” studies [of school funding and reform, released by Stanford University], and this was to be the year when that would be carefully considered. But … all of the sudden the budget crisis is there, and no one wants to come forward and talk about the resources that would be necessary to put those reforms in place.

And this year, in fact, not only were they not willing to talk about that, they weren’t willing to talk about changes that need to happen at the state level that the Getting Down to Facts studies pointed to. When they talked about educational reform, they were talking about changes that need to happen in Sacramento.

As the next president of CSBA, you will be in a position to help drive the agenda for education. What do you see as your priorities as president of CSBA in 2009?

I definitely will be in partnership with the Executive Committee, the Board of Directors and the Delegate Assembly. And my feeling is that, we need to be a force to work toward the goal areas we have identified together: adequate funding for education, closing the achievement gap, having local boards recognized as effective leaders in education, and improving the image of public education.

I would also mention three things that the Delegate Assembly has worked on: taking a look at the Getting Down to Facts studies and then creating a policy document in response—that was May 2007; and this last May, they came up with a set of revenue principles to guide CSBA leadership in evaluating proposals for tax increases and other fiscal resources. And now, in December, they will adopt the 2009-10 Policy Platform.

Those three documents have the force of the 275-odd delegates elected by school boards all over the state behind them. That’s an incredible force to be reckoned with. And when we can walk into a legislator’s office … it’s like that Verizon commercial.

You’ve got the network behind you.

I’ve got the network behind me. And if the network is telling me—if the network has already decided, ‘This is our vision and this is our mission, and these are the things that we think are most important next year,’ why would I not be right there with that? So that’s where I’ll be with them.

I think also [CSBA’s members] want to know what keeps me up at night. And what keeps me up at night is mostly what we have just been talking about, and that is how we can improve our educational system so that students who are not learning can become engaged in their education and be successful. I’m reluctant to say what keeps me up at night is the achievement gap, because even though data—objective, standardized test kind of data—is really important, it’s just not enough. It’s just not sufficient to say that we’re defining student success by looking at their standardized test scores. We need to have students who are graduating from high school ready for their next best step.

We need to share best practices … and find ways that school boards can be partners with their leadership teams in addressing those problems, because I think they’re hard ones to talk about. It’s hard for school boards to ask at the end of the day, “Did what we try work?” Because they’re asking their superintendent—who is their employee—“Did you do a great job?” And if the superintendent says, “No,” you know, there should be some questions there, but it is important that school boards have a good enough governance relationship that they can ask those kinds of questions and move on to the next step of improving their program to improve student achievement.

Is there anything I have not asked you that you would like to talk about?

I would just like to repeat that what is very near and dear to me—really very, very, very important to me—is school board governance, and the role that CSBA plays in helping school boards and leadership teams govern better. It’s where I learned how to be a better school board member. It’s where I learned how to look out of my own little community and understand larger issues and how they affect us. [CSBA’s] Annual Conference and continuing education are valuable, but so are the services that we offer to districts that are having a hard time with governance. … It’s been very important to me as a school board member that CSBA spends so much time and energy in helping school boards do a better job and I just really appreciate it. The whole issue around governance is thorny, and it’s something that the general public, I think, generally thinks should be an easy thing to do; if you’re honest and straightforward, it should be easy to do, but it’s not. It’s not.

Brian Taylor (btaylor@csba.org) is the managing editor of California Schools.