The idea of raising academic standards for East Side Union High School District students was nothing new when I decided to pursue an A-G graduation policy in 2010. Fifteen years earlier, Superintendent Joe Coto instituted a policy that required all incoming freshmen to take Algebra 1 as part of the College Board’s Equity 2000 initiative to improve college readiness for underrepresented students. The College Board is a national organization focused on expanding access to higher education.

Despite teachers’ criticism of that policy, Coto asked the East Side Board of Trustees to consider adding Algebra 2 as a graduation requirement six years later in 2001. That appeared to be a bridge too far for skeptical teachers. One math teacher told the Mercury News in a February 26, 2001, article, “We could hold our graduation ceremonies in a phone booth,” if the Board approved such a policy. “You’re just setting them up to fail,” said another math teacher in the same article. Interestingly, the second teacher is currently President of the East Side Teachers Association (ESTA).

The suggestion was clear, and the sentiment was exactly what the ESTA president told me at breakfast nine years later: “Our kids can’t pass Algebra 2. You’re setting them up to fail.” Ultimately, the East Side Board did not add Algebra 2 to the list of graduation requirements in 2001. By the time I was prepared to unveil an A-G policy proposal in 2010, ESTA had been on the record for nearly a decade raising doubts about East Side students’ ability to pass Algebra 2.

I was perplexed at East Side teachers’ insistence that East Side kids could not achieve. While researching issues related to student achievement, I came across a January 9, 1999, Mercury News article quoting a California Association of Mexican-American Educators (AMEA) board member, who stated, “Too often, teachers judge students based on their families’ backgrounds and lower their goals.”  The AMEA is a statewide organization that advocates for equal academic access.

That was the smoking gun. Some East Side teachers just did not believe in our kids. Their viewpoint that certain students could not pass Algebra 2 had not changed in the eleven years between the 1999 Mercury News story and a potential East Side A-G vote. In fact, little had changed since I sat in my counselor’s office at James Lick High School three decades earlier. It was clear to me that an advocacy plan had to address teachers’ concerns.

As I prepared a plan, the realization set in that ESTA’s neutrality pledge would not overcome some teachers’ inherent biases and could potentially threaten the passage of an A-G policy. Relying on my experience as a corporate government relations executive, I developed a multi-pronged approach to securing the majority of votes necessary to approve an A-G policy.

Since California law prohibits school board members from discussing policy proposals in private with a majority of trustees, I could not directly lobby fellow trustees to secure the majority of votes. I had to earn the support of one trustee and hopefully collaborate on a path forward.

With that in mind, my advocacy plan centered on generating broad community support to encourage, or if necessary, coerce board members to support A-G by incorporating solutions to ESTA’s concerns. Three major groups of people could exert that kind of support, or if necessary, pressure on the Board of Trustees: (1) parents and students, (2) nonprofit educational support groups, (3) influential community members, and (4) the general public.

I would begin the campaign by introducing the A-G concept during my 2010 State of the District Address to the East Side education community, parents, and students. I planned to reach out to the Silicon Valley Education Foundation (SVEF) for advice and support. SVEF was a well-respected nonprofit organization that had been advocating for A-G requirements for years. Seeking endorsements from local community and political leaders and engaging with local media rounded out the advocacy plan.

On paper, the plan looked feasible. Executing it was another proposition entirely. By mid-January 2010, I was ready to go.

***

Next time: ESUHSD State of the District Address

Our kids can’t pass Algebra 2. You’re setting them up to fail. 

~President, East Side Teachers Association

***

After sharing the idea of an A-G graduation requirement with the superintendent and several principals, the next, and perhaps most important, step was to meet with the president of the East Side Teachers Association (ESTA) to share my plans for student achievement and seek ESTA’s support for A-G. We met at a beloved breakfast spot in the Evergreen neighborhood within the ESUHSD boundaries. It was an old-fashioned cafe with booths lining the perimeter and tables occupying the center. The smell of bacon, eggs, and pancakes filled the air.

Over breakfast, we chatted amiably and caught up on issues important to teachers. When I summarized my plans for an A-G graduation policy, the president sat silently, looking skeptical. The president asked pointed questions. Why? Does the district have the resources? Are other board members in support? The president was concerned that the ESTA board and membership would not likely support my proposal.

“In theory it’s a great idea, and we all want kids to be successful,” ESTA’s leader told the Mercury News. “But we don’t have room to add more chem labs. There’s no funding for new textbooks. How do we get junior highs to raise the bar to prepare students for ninth grade?” ESTA supported the last assertion with data. Forty percent of ninth-graders fail Algebra I, the first class in the college-prep math sequence.

By 2010, just a handful of school districts had policies that required students to take an A-G curriculum. San Jose Unified and Los Angeles Unified were leaders in that space. A-G was not on the radar for most school districts in California. The California Teachers Association (CTA) had not taken a position on the issue. The CTA focused its advocacy on higher teacher pay, smaller class size, more training support, and additional classroom resources. Calmly sipping coffee, I speculated CTA principles were driving the ESTA president’s reluctance about A-G.

With that in mind, I offered to partner with ESTA to advocate for and secure resources to provide teachers with the tools to help students succeed. The president persisted against the idea. The proposal would be hugely unpopular with teachers. The challenge for the president would be to prevent some ESTA leaders from publicly opposing the initiative. Understanding that subtle threat should have been a signal for me to stop pursuing an A-G policy proposal. 

Undeterred, I made a second attempt at persuasion by appealing to our commonalities. We were both ESUHSD students of color who went on to succeed in college and in our respective careers. “If we were able to do it, my rationale began …” ESTA’s president was unmoved. The third attempt was a combination of scornful sarcasm and facts. “The alternative is to do nothing,” I said. “We’ve got plenty of data to show that’s not working.” The tension in the restaurant booth was palpable. 

We stared each other down like a couple of prizefighters. I was unconvinced that ESTA’s “talking points” were the real reason why teachers would be so vehemently opposed to high standards. So I prodded with pointed questions. The president responded assuredly and bluntly, “Our kids can’t pass Algebra 2. You’re setting them up to fail.” I was shocked by the honesty, however misplaced in my opinion. Sincere sadness began to creep into my consciousness. How could we possibly expect kids to succeed if our teachers don’t expect them to be successful?

Ultimately, we agreed to disagree on the merits of the policy. I confidently stated that I would move forward with the proposal at the State of the District Address later that month “with or without ESTA’s support.” “If ESTA wanted to go on record opposing high standards,” I continued, “the court of public opinion will certainly weigh in.” Teachers in opposition to higher standards wouldn’t be a good look. ESTA’s president paused and assured me that the organization and membership would remain publicly neutral.  

Satisfied for the moment, I ended the meeting with a forced smile and a cordial handshake. Before meeting with the ESTA president, I anticipated an A-G slam dunk. After my unwise display of stubborn determination at breakfast, I knew that preparing for a full-court press was the only course of action. It was going to be a long road to secure passage of an A-G graduation policy. Phase 2 – developing a comprehensive advocacy strategy – would have to begin right away.

***

Next Week: The Advocacy Plan