A conversation with … Alan Bersin 

Alan Bersin was appointed Secretary of Education by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on July 1. For the previous seven years he served as superintendent of the nation’s eighth largest urban school district, San Diego Unified, where he launched a major reorganization of the district to focus on improving instructional strategies and modernizing its business infrastructure to support teaching and learning in the classroom.

In the mid-1990s, Bersin served as the U.S. Attorney and as southwest border representative for the United States Attorney’s Office in Southern California, responsible for coordinating federal law enforcement activities on the U.S./Mexico border. A member of the policy board of EdVoice and of the Broad Institute for Superintendents, as well as various boards and councils, Bersin has served as a member of CSBA’s Urban School Districts Council. He was educated at Harvard University and attended Balliol College at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, thereafter receiving his law degree from Yale Law School in 1974.

California Schools magazine recently spoke with the secretary about his vision for California public education as standards, accountability and adequate funding meet in the crosshairs of public scrutiny.

You came to San Diego after a successful career as a U.S. Attorney. But you are perhaps best known to educators for your school reform work in San Diego’s Blueprint for Student Success. What major lessons did you take away from that experience?

The theory of action to which I subscribe is that the quality of teaching is the most critical path to improving student achievement, particularly for our at-risk children. The need to support teachers as well as students is critical to our work as educators. That involves investing massively in professional development for teachers, giving them the support that they deserve as part of the reciprocal obligation that we have in a system of accountability. A professional is held accountable for results, but the system is also held accountable to provide the teacher or professional with the supports that she needs to succeed. That insight, I think, remains essential to our work.

At the same time, I believe the largest problem facing education in the inner city as well as in certain rural areas is the maldistribution of quality teaching resources throughout our schools. For reasons that have evolved over time, we find it very difficult to retain the best teachers in the classrooms in which they’re needed the most.

How has your experience in San Diego prepared you to lead the governor’s proposed “education reform” agenda?

I think the important experience that I’ve had, along with our team, brings a very important local perspective to statewide policy-making. And, incidentally, through the help of hundreds of teachers and some extraordinary colleagues, after seven years I consider myself an educator and am very well taught about the critical issues facing public education. But the key perspective of having engaged in a large-scale effort to support teachers and students at scale — and to do that in the context of a local district — I think is invaluable experience and will inform the policy agenda by bringing to bear insights on what happens when the rubber meets the road.

What can you tell us about the governor’s education agenda?

I think there’s obviously a sequence of changes that inform the agenda. The first, as painful as it is, is the requirement that we see education as part of the larger fiscal house that is currently in disorder and needs to be set right. That is to say, underlying any agenda must be the ability to generate sustained resources over time to implement it. Continuity is critical, and continuity is what we lack so clearly in the financing of public education, as well as the financing of all other public services and capital needs in our state. So the difficult part of the agenda at the moment is seeing education as part of a larger budgetary and fiscal dysfunction, which as long as it exists will prevent us from making the investments in education that I believe and the governor believes are required if we are to restore California public education to the esteemed place it once held in American society. That part of the agenda requires that we see ourselves not in isolation from the rest of the budget, but as part of the problem that requires a solution. And this is where Proposition 98, which was intended to be a source of greater revenue for public education, has turned out to be inadequate. So this restructuring is a prerequisite to an agenda that I believe the governor is eager to be about.

If Proposition 98 is not the answer, what do you believe needs to happen to ensure California’s schools have long-term, adequate and stable education funding?

I think there’s a lot to be said about looking at average funding over a number of years. We should be looking at this on a longer time horizon in the near term. Long term, it is clear that we need to make further investments in education. The issue seems to be stuck on whether or not we will make the changes that will be required to get better results from the investments we make than has been the case in the past. Right now the dialogue seems stuck — to the extent that it’s a dialogue rather than a shouting match — between those who insist on more money before changes can be made and those who insist on changes to be made before money will come forward. It seems to me that you can approach this recognizing, as the governor does, that we need to make further investments, but we also need to have the assurance that the system will produce a return on those investments that’s worth the money in the first place.

What the governor is asking is that as there’s the demand for more money, there’s also an indication of how we in the education world would improve the functioning of the public education system. We have to be prepared to do both. It’s not one hand clapping. But until we actually engage in the very serious discussion about what we would use additional money for, how we expect that we would reform the system to see that we’re getting a better return on that money … That’s a discussion that could be held at the same time, but so far the governor has found little willingness from those in our world who would simply say, ‘more money, more money, more money.’ That has not produced the results we want for public education in the past, and I don’t think it will in the future. So it would be nice to get over that, and I’m hopeful that we can do that over the next number of years — after we resolve the issue of the place of Prop. 98 in a rational budgeting system for California.

So you’d like to engage the public in a long-term discussion about how to fund schools?

Yes. And then, frankly, there’s a large issue of adequacy. We need to get a better handle on what it costs in a standards-based system to educate a child to the standards we’ve established, and the changes we have to make to see that the investment we make in that adequate education is going to produce the results.

CSBA Executive Director Scott Plotkin is a member of Jack O’Connell’s P-16 Council, which is looking various issues of education reform, some of which overlap with the governor’s advisory committee chaired by Ted Mitchell. Scott tells us that, with his support, at their last meeting P-16 Council Chair Barry Munitz and the superintendent want to engage you and Dr. Mitchell in discussions that might help all of the efforts that are underway. Would you support that kind of collaboration?

I think that’s a very sensible idea, and a good one. I think Superintendent O’Connell and I recognize that there needs to be a lot more discovery of common ground, notwithstanding disagreements that may exist between us on some issues. One of the ways in which we can accomplish that operationally is to see that the P-16 Council and the Governor’s Advisory Committee on Education Excellence have a close working relationship. Ted Mitchell and Barry Munitz are both from L.A., both college presidents, and both extremely talented people, and good people. They should be able to figure out a way in which there could be an executive committee exchange between the commissions and involving Jack O’Connell and myself as well as members of both groups. So I think it’s a capital idea.

Hasn’t there already been, to some extent, a sharing of duties or division of interests among the councils?

I don’t know that there’s been any formal division, but I don’t think that would be a bad idea. In fact, there’s plenty enough to do on the agenda and people could become more familiar with certain topics as long as there’s an exchange and a recognition that each of the groups has a slightly different purpose in terms of their reason for being.

What is the role of the governor’s advisory committee in that effort?

I believe that the work Ted Mitchell and his colleagues will be providing is crucial in terms of generating data and information that will inform the policy discussions as we move forward. This encompasses everything from considerations of adequacy, to reviews of fiscal facts that need to be made more transparent — such as the huge unfunded liabilities that exist across the state with respect to retiree medical benefits. Issues of governance, issues of proper allocation and equitable allocation of quality teaching are all issues about which we should generate, in the first instance, many more facts and much more information so that we are approaching it with light rather than heat. And I hope and expect that the governor’s advisory committee will be a terrific forum in which that information can be brought forward.

On another topic, I was surprised to read that one in every 20 California schools is now a charter. Recent studies have shown charters to have mixed results, at best, in improving student achievement. Do you believe in charter schools as a broad educational reform?

Charter schools are not the only answer, to be sure. They’re a species of school organization that is freed from the conventional rules that govern regular district schools, but they’re clearly a crucial element of public education to the extent that they provide local communities and families opportunities for choice.

This is a very important development in this era of public education, but they need to be judged and evaluated and held accountable for the same things as the rest of California’s public schools. ‘Are the children learning?’ is the key question. Do they manage to produce better results that over time will narrow and then close the achievement gap among groups of our students? This is a forum that holds great promise, but it’s got to be held accountable.

Do you envision further regulation for charters?

I think it’s about holding charter schools accountable for results in terms of student learning. The weakness is not in the form itself, but when charter schools fail, they do not merit being renewed. And in the most egregious cases, of either academic bankruptcy or fiscal bankruptcy, I think charters need to be revoked.

We’re hearing a lot about the concept of giving mayors more control over schools in urban areas by allowing them to appoint board members and superintendents. What are your thoughts about that approach?

The critical element of public education is composed, I think, of two dimensions: First is that it is a public education in which there is a strong link between public dollars and public institutions responsible for educating the children of the community. The second is the concept and the reality of local control. School boards are an essential institution in link with both of those elements. Having said that, the links to democratic wellsprings which school boards supply I think can be supplied both by elected school boards and, in certain contexts, by appointed school boards. But the issue is not to start off with a conclusion — the issue is to be prepared to argue the best way of implementing local control and the public financing of public education. School boards, traditionally and historically, have been the vehicle by which people are satisfied about both of those links.

I believe, though, that what we’re seeing around the country in large urban areas is something that we should be willing to examine with an open mind and not a preconceived conclusion. By the same token, I think those who would think that this is a panacea are shortsighted. Mayoral control is not a panacea. I would hope that we would recognize that in the vast majority of districts, school boards are vital, successful, viable mechanisms of ensuring that link between public education and the public, and that elections have produced good results and democratic results. In those areas where the suggestion is that the political process is not producing satisfactory governance results, the burden of proof should be on those who would propose a change. There are those, like the California School Boards Association, who I think should look to take a leadership role in forcing the kind of discussion that we should have on issues of this critical importance. But we should not let shutters come down in our head at the mere mention of a change, but be prepared to explore it, adopt it when it serves student achievement, and reject it when there are good reasons to do that.

What else do you hope to accomplish as Secretary for Education?

I’m also looking forward as secretary and as a member of the state board in working with Superintendent O’Connell to develop a unified approach to intervention, one that takes into account all of the insights that we’ve learned from the School Assistance and Intervention Team experience, as well as the requirements of federal law regarding restructuring. Those two efforts, I think, are a necessary prelude to developing more effective supports for students and teachers through targeted and strategic intervention. It seems to me the important role right now, but also generally, is to find common ground. Education should be the source of vigorous debate and disagreement. But the common goal of improving student achievement and supporting children and teachers means that we can differ without losing sight of the tremendous amount of common ground that there is.

Do you see yourself as a conciliator in the education community?

The openness to finding common ground is something that is a deep personal and professional value. One of the difficulties in public education, and in California politics today, is that we’re not finding that common ground in a way that permits compromise and bargaining to that compromise in good faith. I’m looking forward to helping the governor and helping those in the Education Coalition to identify the common ground, to resist the notion of zero-sum games, but also to recognize that collaboration cannot be a synonym for paralysis.

Certainly it helps to display a united front when you keep in mind the goal of the children’s education and helping those who come from less advantaged backgrounds in our diverse state to succeed.

There are huge differences in views and interests, but you have to find the common ground. For example, if everyone doesn’t understand that dealing with the underperforming schools and at-risk children is a central requirement, if we don’t understand that unless the system can improve student achievement, the long-term health of the franchise is threatened, if we can’t find common ground at those levels and we are constantly disputing means to an end that we ostensibly share, then, in fact, we’re going to experience rough seas.

What are your thoughts about No Child Left Behind? Is there anything else that you might do as secretary to help the law really work for local districts?

I think the important point here is to recognize that there is a distinction between schools that are failing to make progress fast enough and are making progress, as contrasted with those schools that are failing and just flat-out stuck in the mud. The system as currently configured at the federal level does not permit us to use the growth model to make that very important distinction. And there is a difference — not merely a distinction — that we have got to honor. Teachers and school board members and superintendents and staff members and students are working very hard to improve student achievement. There is significant progress in many places across the state, and we should not let statistical oddities or rigid, unbending milestones detract from encouraging that continued progress and the people and professionals who are making it happen.

An accountability system that is so brittle that it does not and cannot take into account the efforts that are producing improved student achievement — albeit not at a rate that is fast enough by federal standards — is a system that threatens to over-classify districts and schools as failing. When that happens, people can very quickly lose faith in the accountability system, which thereafter loses its legitimacy. Accountability is absolutely essential to everything and every change we wish to see in public education, but it must be an accountability system that is perceived both by those of us inside the education community as well as by the public at large as a fair and an accurate system.