Q&A;: GREGORY BOWMAN

During his last day as superintendent of the Burbank Unified School District, Gregory Bowman sat in a bare-walled office as the faint sounds of string instruments rose from a stereo, one of his few remaining possessions in the room.

Also in the office was a “retirement countdown” clock that had wound down to zero after two years and numerous resets.

Bowman’s seven years as schools chief, 15 years as a district administrator and 44 years as an educator came to a close Tuesday, ending an era of reorganization and fiscal prudence that was a break from the recent past.

Under Bowman’s leadership, Burbank Unified emerged from a state of financial disarray, moving on to a period of academic progress and overall stability that included the planning of several construction projects.

But the district now faces more fiscal uncertainty as Bowman, 66, turns over his post to Supt. Kevin Jolly with the threat of deep budget cuts that could force dozens of layoffs and program cuts over the next three years.

Despite the challenges facing the district, Bowman is confident that he leaves it in a position to succeed.

ZAIN SHAUK: Are you ready to leave?

GREGORY BOWMAN: Yes, I’m ready. You know, the end is less exciting than the beginning.

Q: Why is that?

A: I think when I started in the profession, I was a teacher, I was enthusiastic, there were so many unknowns. Now after 40 years I’ve experienced so much of the world of education, particularly in California where there are so many ups and downs and peaks and valleys. Many of those have been created by the Legislature and governors over the years to the point where stability of funding has been a continuous issue all along during the time I’ve been in public education.

Q: So as you’re leaving, you’ve come to realize patterns that occur with education funding in California. Has that become a focus of yours?

A: Yes, there are so many aspects to this that if the populace of the state would just focus on education — I know it may seem self-serving to say that I think education is the most important function, but it is because it assures that there is going to be a future for the education of young people.

Q: Some politicians argue that public education receives too much funding for services that should not be a responsibility of the state. Do educators share the blame for the budget crisis because of overexpansion and an overconfident outlook on what the government should provide students?

A: You could say that there are things that we don’t need to do, but there are things that we are expected to do in public education, and having a depth and breadth of curriculum and opportunities for learning is one of those. We are expected to teach all children, and all children are expected to be successful. That’s different from the past. When I first started it was, “You teach the kids, and if they get it, fine, and if they don’t, well, you’re going to lose a few.” But that’s not an expectation that is consistent with high expectations for learning, which we have in California and in the United States with No Child Left Behind. It’s everyone’s responsibility in the organization to make sure that every child learns. Now not every child learns at the same rate, and not every child learns everything at the same time, but I do believe that with standards-based education and an accountability system and the use of data to inform instruction, that we are in a far better place to assure the success of young people than we’ve ever been.

Q: Isn’t there a problem with educators’ reliance on accountability measures, like standardized testing, and their methods for gauging academic progress?

A: Let me put it this way: No system of accountability is perfect, but let’s go back to when you were in school or when I was in school — there was no demonstrable accountability. Everyone was compared to the other students and what they were doing rather than compared to a standard of expectation. Now kids at all levels are expected to be able to learn and then demonstrate the use of that knowledge or mastery level.

Q: But you don’t have to defend the system anymore; you’re leaving the system. Is there a problem with the accountability measures?

A: No. I believe that we’re in the best possible place that we can be to assure that there’s going to be a future, because if you don’t have accountability and you don’t look at the results of what you do and then use that in a positive way to inform what you do, then you’re not going to be able to make continuous growth with kids.

Q: Do you disagree with the argument that students should not be matched up to a potentially arbitrary standard, but rather to their own personal progress when measuring their performance?

A: I think that’s a different argument. If you are looking at this from the perspective of what we expect students to learn and be able to do, then you have to be able to decide what the important learnings are. Once you identify those, then the question is, how do you know a child has learned that, and how are they able to use it? How do you assess that in some meaningful way? Not by comparing that child with others, but comparing the child to the expectations as established by the standard of learning.

Q: But that’s the question. What expectation are you meeting when you are comparing all the students, who may move at different paces, to the same standard?

A: But not all of them have to be there at the same time. It’s an individual growth assessment or measure . . . Today we are looking at the importance and more noble idea of educating all children to be successful, and what that suggests is that there is not an expectation that you can leave someone out. That is a very different paradigm of learning than in the 20th century.

Q: You mentioned that you plan to focus on affecting education policy during your retirement. Are you planning on being a lobbyist or running for elected office?

A: No, but I continue to want to have my voice heard with those people who are in policy-making positions because the work that we do and that we have left to do is probably the most important work that there is . . . I think that my concern is that education ought to be maintained for the value of what we expect education to do. Presently it is considered more of a political and money issue than an issue focused on the needs of young people learning.

Q: When you took over as superintendent in 2002, the district was in a state of financial disarray and had to send layoff notices to a quarter of its teachers. Now you’re in another financial crisis. What was the problem then, and how is the current situation different?

A: There are more external forces that influence public education. Whether it’s the establishment of accountability, standards, how we do business, the funding we have, the mechanisms for reporting funding. All of those things externally also influence what happens internally because I think you have a board of education here in Burbank that takes the matter of education very seriously, and they’ve established goals and high standards for everyone. That is somewhat different from the decade before.

Q: What was the problem in the past?

A: I think it was lack of structure, of people in the right position who had the training, the idea that there were other issues that seemed to divert the attention of the policymakers in the district. Now in the last decade there has been a refocusing on student learning, and everything that we do is now based upon what we have to do to maintain and support student learning.

Q: But you were a part of that administration in the past.

A: Yes, but I was not in the position to influence the expenditure of funds. My role, generally, was to bring more organization to the management of the schools, the administration of the schools, district policy, and particularly we developed a strategic master plan in 1997 . . . It began to line up the pieces of this puzzle so that we were all moving in the same direction instead of in rather a fractious way that any good idea that came along was an idea to pursue. So we really began to focus.

Q: Do you miss anything about being in the classroom?

A: You always miss the students when you’re farthest away from them. And as a principal and then as a director, assistant superintendent and superintendent, you move away from them, but they are always the focus and the center of all that we do. You must never in education move away from your client. Your client is your student. Everything else is peripheral.

Q: After 44 years in education, do you still believe that you can make a difference through education?

A: Absolutely, because learning is constant. The players change, but you have to be able to learn skills that are useful in communication. Problem solving, collaboration, these are things that we see in today’s society and the business world, in diplomacy. In all aspects of society there’s a greater need for people to come together and work together, and this is exacerbated, if you will, by technology. Whether you Twitter or bling or do whatever you do, the communications are so instant today that it’s important that below all of that you have substance.

Q: Why is now the right time to call it quits?

A: I think when you reach my age it’s time to look at other challenges in life, and so that’s what I’m doing. You can’t work forever, and I look back with satisfaction that we’ve done very well, and I know that Dr. Jolly is going to be taking the reins of an organization that’s effective, that is credible and trustworthy. So with those pieces in place, it’s the right time.

Q: Is it going to be hard to leave?

A: Yes and no. (pause) It’s easier now, or I’ve resigned myself to it. In December it was a big decision. Today it’s not the first day, like it was 44 years ago, it’s the last day . . . and I have as much enthusiasm today as I did the first day.