By Tali Woodward

JUST OVER A year ago the San Francisco Unified School District launched its Dream Schools Initiative, which is intended to transform floundering inner-city schools into college prep academies on par with the most exclusive private schools.

Superintendent Arlene Ackerman, who, sources said, takes the success of the program very personally, announced that the first three Dream Schools would open in the long-neglected Bayview in August 2004. Eventually 15 of the least desirable schools in the city, Ackerman said, would be rejuvenated with longer hours, a highly structured academic program, uniforms, field trips, and even the art classes that are so rare in public schools today.

With glowing press accounts, carefully orchestrated public relations events (including a visit from Bill Cosby), and the district's plan to turn seven more sites into Dream Schools next year, the program is largely presented as a panacea for the very complex problems in inner-city schools – even though the three Dream Schools have only been in operation for six months.

But staffers and parents are beginning to paint a more nuanced picture that exposes how challenging it can be to reform a neglected school. Almost everyone who's been close to the reform effort acknowledges that it's been exhausting and often confounding. Some voice deep concerns about aspects of the program. Yet for every critic, there is an enthusiastic supporter who believes that in spite of the challenges, the Dream Schools program could truly rehabilitate the educational opportunities in this African American sector and, eventually, throughout the entire southeast part of town.

Accounts of the Dream Schools' first six months raise some important questions. Can any public school really re-create the offerings of a private prep school? Is there room within a highly structured reform plan for teacher creativity? And how can the school district help students who are behind grade level catch up – without overwhelming their teachers?

• • •

Almost any educator will tell you that the key to a school's success is a consistent, unified – and experienced – staff. But the Dream Schools have had a hard time attracting educators who have already spent years teaching in San Francisco.

The teachers union has taken aim at the Dream Schools project, blasting the requirement that teachers at schools selected for the program reapply for their jobs. The union's opposition – and the requirement that teachers at Dream Schools work longer days and some Saturdays – has made it harder for the district to attract qualified applicants. At this point, only 63 of the more than 200 teachers now working at the seven designated expansion sites have reapplied for their jobs. The district has received about 330 applications total.

Jayson Matthews was already working at 21st Century Academy when the school was chosen to become a Dream School. When he first heard about the program, he was thrilled. Matthews was an admirer of Lorraine Monroe – the educator who founded the Frederick Douglass Academy, a school in central Harlem that now rivals the most exclusive New York City schools in terms of test scores and college acceptances, and that served as the model for the Bayview schools. And he was inspired by Ackerman's stated commitment to giving long-neglected minority students what they need to excel. "We went to a summer training, and it was phenomenal. [We were told] the kids were going to have music, learn a second language, go on field trips," Matthews told the Bay Guardian.

When the fall semester started, Matthews said, he quickly saw that some of the program's promises couldn't possibly be kept. During the first months, 21st Century had few bonus classes, he told us. "Having 45 minutes of Spanish or 30 minutes of music a week isn't cutting it. It's a little better [than the average school], but it was billed as stellar."

Matthews's biggest gripe was the fact that most of the extra afternoon class time was devoted to rote, scripted learning exercises he says did little for the sixth graders he was teaching. "It would be like, 'Turn to page five, put your finger on the word the,' " he said. " 'Say the with me: The, the, the.' " Matthews doesn't blame the district or the Dream Schools program entirely for the stifling curriculum, but rather the current nationwide emphasis on preparing students for standardized tests. Still, he said the practice of "teaching to the test" increased once 21st Century became a Dream School.

Other staffers confirmed that repetitious exercises dominated the "tutorials" during the extra afternoon hours. One 21st Century teacher, who asked not to be identified, said of the reading curriculum, "I think if you want to turn kids off reading, it's a really good way." And a staffer at Gloria R. Davis College Prep Academy said, "No one has time with this Dream Schools program – because it's so intense and focused on test scores – to do anything outside the box or creative."

"I would try to break from [the script]; I would get reprimanded," Matthews said. "I kept saying over and over again, 'The kids hate this stuff.' " And in January, beset by ulcers he attributes to his stress level, he resigned. "Leaving there was hard; I cried like a baby. But I couldn't stay there, because I believe it's doing [the students] more harm than good."

• • •

But not all Dream Schools staffers are disappointed with the program. While everyone we spoke with acknowledged that the first semester has brought many challenges, at least half of them still feel the initiative is on the right track.

"It's a big experiment," Matthews's former colleague Robert Stephenson said, "so there are a lot of kinks we're working out, but that's just part of doing this sort of [overhaul]."

The SFUSD referred us to Tamatrice Rice Mitchell, who was the project manager for all three Bayview schools and is now working full-time at Charles Drew, which serves Dream Schoolers in prekindergarten through third grade. She spoke breathlessly of the changes occurring at Drew: "We're trying to take this college awareness to another level. Some classes have gone out to S.F. State for field trips. We're planning a career and college awareness day." Then she recited a laundry list of extras available to the kids – from Spanish and music classes to cooking and photography after school.

When asked about the criticism from some teachers that the curriculum is too regimented, Rice Mitchell said, "When kids tune out, a good teacher gets them involved somehow. For the most part, we've got it down to a science." She acknowledged that the day can feel too long and said the school would reevaluate the schedule near the end of this year, but her emphasis was always on the progress that's being made. "Some of these kids weren't like this last year," she said, sounding genuinely thrilled. "I think it's like night and day."

"We have a great staff and a lot of support," said another teacher who wanted to remain anonymous. "One of the challenges we have is really getting the community involved. A lot of these parents haven't had good experiences with school themselves."

Some parents agree.

Sabrina Butler has a seventh grader at Gloria R. Davis and visits the school two to four times a week. She is pleased with the program and told us parts of the teaching are "very interactive." In Butler's opinion, the biggest hurdle is getting parents involved in the schools.

"There was no buy-in at the beginning of the school year. That's my problem, not just with the Dream Schools, but any school," she said at a community forum Feb. 3. "We don't have parent participation. The teachers, the staff, cannot do everything." Parents in the Bayview are of course often facing enormous challenges in terms of supporting their families. It's an issue that underlies any discussion of the Dream Schools: "What are we doing in this community for the parents?" Butler asked.

• • •

In October the district announced it would convert seven more sites into Dream Schools next year. Some wonder if that's too much, too soon.

"I think Ackerman should get these three working well – for another year at least – before starting seven more," said one teacher we spoke with.

But there's no sign the SFUSD is considering changing the timeline. (In fact, the program falls under the district's court-mandated desegregation efforts, and district insiders told us SFUSD attorneys think slowing down the reform plan could land the district in hot water.)

To its credit, the administration is clearly taking pains to make the program more flexible and to involve school communities more thoroughly in the design process. Many schools won't follow the Lorraine Monroe model, and most probably won't have extra hours each day.

But the opposition of United Educators of San Francisco, the union that represents San Francisco's public school teachers, remains a troublesome problem for the district. At issue is the requirement that teachers at Dream School sites reapply for their jobs. SFUSD administrators say they want to make sure Dream Schools teachers are committed to the program, but the union equates the policy with "reconstitution," a controversial reform process that has failed before in San Francisco.

Under strict reconstitution a school's entire staff is dismantled and replaced. This hasn't happened at the Dream Schools. Though many of the staffers at the first three sites didn't apply to continue teaching under the Dream Schools program, three-quarters of those who did were kept on, including two of the three principals.

UESF president Dennis Kelly acknowledged the distinction but told us, "Reconstitution lite is better than reconstitution. It doesn't make it good."

"Telling a teacher, 'You don't have a job here, but you may be able to come back if you jump through this hoop' – that is what people resent," he explained. "We are not opposed to school reform.... But when you don't show [teachers] the fundamental respect, that hurts their dedication to doing the job. When the teacher is hurting, the kids feel it." In the past couple months, UESF has filed multiple grievances challenging the policy, none of which have been resolved.

"The union seems to be using all the avenues at its disposal rather than working with us," SFUSD labor relations director Tom Ruiz said. "I think the fact that three out of four people were rehired [during the first round] shows that we're not trying to wipe people out."

School board member Jill Wynns, who has traditionally been close to UESF, told us the union's opposition to the hiring policy is odd given that "back in the bad old days of reconstitution, the union came up with the idea that the not-as-bad way to do it was to allow people to reapply." Moreover, Wynns said, "We should have a mutual goal of getting the best teachers in the most challenging schools."

Wynns and her fellow board member Norman Yee have introduced a resolution that would allow UESF to draw up the reform plan for one of the 2006-'07 Dream School sites.

In the meantime, the administration said it intends to build "on the existing programmatic strengths at each school" – and this seems to include keeping some teachers and administrators. For instance, the staff at Sanchez Elementary were up in arms when it was designated a Dream School. Having considerably boosted test scores in recent years, they couldn't see why the SFUSD would want to dismantle their team. Now that the district has decided to keep the principal in place, many people expect more teachers will decide to stay.

Still, such an ambitious project is bound to generate some chaos. And some of the challenges at the existing Dream Schools are simply beyond the SFUSD's control. The district, after all, can't boost federal funding or roll back the testing requirements in No Child Left Behind.

"People may disagree with specific elements [of the program]," school board member Sarah Lipson said. "But the fact that Ackerman wants to do something about [these schools] is appreciated."

To hear some parents and teachers tell it, the Dream Schools are the best thing that has happened in the Bayview in decades. Even most skeptics say that there have been clear improvements at these schools – and that students already seem to be responding to the changes.

"Both of my daughters – their self-esteem has shot through the roof," said Omar Khalif, who has one child at 21st Century and one at Gloria R. Davis, where he serves as the chair of the school-site council. He acknowledged the difficulties: "We're talking to parents who 9 times out of 10 are victims of the system, and then asking them to come back and help," he said, adding, "There's too much attention on the tests." But in the end, Khalif said, "This thing has to work and needs to work and can work. Everybody has to step up to another level. Everybody needs to not be afraid to make adjustments – if it's not working, throw it out."

According to parents like Butler, even seemingly basic improvements have already made a big difference. "They have textbooks," she told us. "That was one thing that was very impressive – every child had a textbook, and in some classes they had an extra textbook to take home. That was just totally impressive for me compared to other schools, where my child had to use dittos because they didn't have enough books."

Research assistance by Momo Chang.
E-mail Tali Woodward