kitchen table math, the sequel: Up the administration

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Up the administration

I’m new here as a writer (though I’m a longtime reader), and would like to thank Catherine for allowing me to post anonymously when I feel I have something to say. I work in the education industry, and blogging under cover gives me an opportunity to share thoughts and observations that I otherwise could not share.

I’d like to start my blogging career here by pointing to an issue that doesn’t seem to get much play. And that’s the role of school leadership in the problems we see today.

Teachers, and policies related to teaching, seem to get all the attention. There’s a lot of talk about teaching methods, certification, retention, unions, class sizes, and more. And certainly those are important issues: I’m we’ll aware of the research showing what effect a good teacher can have on the life of a child (or on the flip side, the effect a bad teacher can have).

But in all this talk about what happens in the classrooms, it really seems as if school leadership gets to cop a walk. We’re all talking about the crisis in teaching and learning, but no one’s talking about the crisis in leadership, which could absolutely have an impact on teaching practices and on many other factors involved in good schooling.

Principals have the authority to direct resources (staff, funds, and other resources) as they see fit. They set expectations and lay out the ways in which teachers will operate. If there are problems in education today, I believe that school leadership is just as responsible for them as are teachers, and I’d personally say that the school leaders are more responsible for any other group.

Do school leaders share this point of view? Oh lord no.

A few weeks ago I attended a conference for the state chapter of a national school leadership association. Despite all the problems the rest of us see in public education, this group of school and district leaders clearly felt that they had the bull by the horns: they were the solution, not the problem, and they were doing a pretty darn good job of things in their own eyes. And things would be just perfect if just a few things would happen, like eliminating NCLB or giving them a “better” (assumedly richer) group of students to work with.

It’s frightening to hear the leader of any organization saying that things are actually really good in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, and also believing that anything that’s not good is out of their hands. To see that this thinking isn’t isolated, but is instead the norm, is alarming indeed.

I did some checking after the conference to follow up on what I heard, and came across a fascinating survey report by Public Agenda titled “The Insiders: How Principals and Superintendents See Public Education Today.” Here’s the blurb from the site:

The fourth in a series of Reality Check reports finds that most public school superintendents -– and principals to a lesser extent -– think local schools are already in pretty good shape. In fact, more than half of the nation's superintendents consider local schools to be "excellent." Most superintendents (77%) and principals (79%) say low academic standards are not a serious problem where they work. Superintendents are substantially less likely than classroom teachers to believe that too many students get passed through the system without learning. While 62 percent of teachers say this is a "very" or "somewhat serious" problem in local schools, just 27 percent of superintendents say the same.

So yes, I think it’s worth talking about effective teaching methods and materials, and also talking about how we can get individual teachers to change their ways for the better. But until we address the leadership issue, from which many of these problems originate, we’re going to be treating the symptoms and not the real problem.

13 comments:

SteveH said...

This reminds me of a number of teacher reactions that surprised me. Some teachers seem to think we (at KTM) are singling them out as opposed to administrations. I don't quite understand this reaction.

"... it really seems as if school leadership gets to cop a walk."

????????? Not Catherine!


Teacher problems aren't just symptoms and administrations aren't off limits. And there have been many discussions about the conflict between what's best for the union versus what's best for the kids. As a parent, don't put me in the middle of administration/union battles. I'm on the sideline waving my flag trying to be regarded as something more than a potted plant. I want to choose "none of the above".

In our schools, teachers have quite a bit of control over what goes on in the classroom. Our administration never micromanages. This means that parents spend lots of time talking to each other trying to figure out how to avoid certain teachers. They also spend lots of time trying to get the adminstration to do things differently. And some parental complaints can't be dealt with because of union rules.

The administration, however, can be blamed for bringing in curricula like Everyday Math. Let me just add that the K-6 teachers aren't yelling for Saxon or Singapore Math, and they are part of the selection process.

But what if the administration brought in Singapore Math. The K-6 teachers would revolt. What if the administration tried to set higher (than the low state) expectations and put more pressure on teachers to ensure that learning gets done? Would teachers be happy?

Whatever battles there might be between unions and administrations, don't expect me to get on either bandwagon. Philosophically, both sides stink. I've said before that when my son was in first grade, I sent a message to two school committee members and told them that the school should hand out the Core Knowledge Series books and tell parents that this is NOT the education their children will receive.

What they will receive are low expectations; no need to master adds and subtracts to 20 until the beginning of third grade. Sure, the administration could set the bar higher, but no teacher is asking for more accountability.

Anonymous said...

This is a topic near and dear to me. I would have you think even bigger though. My proposition is that public education is a classic monopoly with 87% market share that is not (and does not have to) meeting the needs of their customers. Worse, the game is rigged such that even if you don't buy the monopoly product, you still are obligated to pay for it.

No fat cat could resist salivating at such a system. $489B input (bigger than Wal Mart) w/26% failure rate and the system is working just fine /snark...

I think everyone, teachers, principals, district admin types, and even publishers and ed schools are laboring inside a 19th century monopoly business model and as such it can not fix itself.

I've started a blog to address the structural failings of public education. It's not ready for prime time yet but it's pointed right at this very question.

I don't want to plug it here without Catherine's OK. Stay tuned.

SteveH said...

There is a definite trend for more choice that doesn't have the voucher baggage of long ago. There are charter schools and some states offer limited choice within the regular public schools. One could look at this as a move in the right direction or one could see it as a way to control or eventually eliminate choice.

In our state, charter schools are strictly controlled (actually, there is a moratorium on them right now) and have to be approved by the public school hierarchy. They will not allow charter schools that set higher expectations which might siphon off better students from the regular public schools. Our town schools claim that since they are "High Performing" on getting almost all of our (affluent) kids over low state cutoffs, they should not be allowed to go to charter schools. They think that it's their money.

Recent reports also indicate that testing results of the existing charter schools are poor or mixed at best. They forget the fact that most of the charter schools are designed for students who don't seem to fit into the regular public schools. These aren't top-level students. This does not, however, stop public school supporters from saying that choice does not work.

Our state is now fighting over lifting the charter school moratorium. It will be interesting to follow the arguments and who is supporting each side.

LSquared32 said...

I you've ever seen a school with a really great principal, you would be totally amazed. Living in a happy, moderately well off, more-or-less suburban city, there are a lot of good principals. They keep everything running smoothly; they support good ideas that don't cost them money (and a few good ideas that do); and they're nice.

But.

A while back, I lived in a big city, and in this city was a magnet school that emphasized academics. Its goal as a magnet school, was to attract kids that were not ESL, who were not starting from behind, and were not likely to move in the middle of the school year (it had a yearly turnover of 50% of the students, most of whom were ESL--I met a student teacher who was talking about how hard it was to deal with 30% turnover: this was 50%).

That principal was amazing. She had the teachers, the students and the parents all on her bandwagon. So far as I could tell, no one came out of a year at that school without being able to read (OK, I was just a parent, I'm pretty sure they didn't succeed with everyone, but it sure wasn't for lack of trying, or good programs, or reaching out to parents and anyone else who could help).

In this school, there was always full time devoted to reading and writing and math and science. The assemblies were honoring kids for doing well in academics, or improving in academics, or to get parents on board for helping their children succeed in academics. There was a science fair, and the fourth graders performed MacBeth. There was an amazing amount of energy for learning.

I'm afraid I was thoroughly spoiled. If that school, with its challenges, could do so well, why aren't the rich schools doing better? I know it's possible to run a school with dedication and vision and a premium on academics because I've seen it, but it requires energy, and vision on the part of administrators, and that seems to be awfully rare.

Anonymous said...

well said & welcome aboard.
i keep being amazed at how much
my fellow teachers complain about
the students when they oughta
be complaining about the bosses.
keep 'em coming. vlorbik

Catherine Johnson said...

You found that study!

Fabulous!

If you hadn't I was going to have to go dig it up.

The other great thing about it is that teachers, in that survey, were much more realistic.

That was quite an experience, reading that survey: in one corner, miserable ticked-off parents.

In the other corner, miserable ticked-off teachers.

Standing in the middle of the ring holding the bell: administrators!

Who are happy as clams!

la di dah

Catherine Johnson said...

I'm afraid I was thoroughly spoiled. If that school, with its challenges, could do so well, why aren't the rich schools doing better?

You've just offered further evidence for my hypothesis, which is that the rich schools are worse than the non-rich schools.

Systematically worse.

more anon

Catherine Johnson said...

????????? Not Catherine!

lollllll

Well....let me just say that appearing on Drudge Report calling for the resignation of one's middle school principal does not increase the peace-and-quiet quotient of a person's life.

Catherine Johnson said...

Paul -- what are you thinking!

Plug away!

My proposition is that public education is a classic monopoly with 87% market share that is not (and does not have to) meeting the needs of their customers. Worse, the game is rigged such that even if you don't buy the monopoly product, you still are obligated to pay for it.

That's where I am now.

I mean....of course we all know this but it's taken a while for me to reach the conclusion that it really, truly can't be "reformed."

I have to say that I've begun to wonder whether the centrist charter people in fact know this, have known it for years,...

Can't remember what caused me to have this perception suddenly. (I'm thinking of centrist Dems like Rotherham.)

Remember how for years public school people accused the "right wing" of supporting vouchers because they wanted to "privatize public education"?

It came to me a couple of weeks ago that this may be a case of misdirection.

They're looking at the wrong enemy.

Catherine Johnson said...

speaking of the bosses

I don't think I've mentioned that a couple of weeks ago several of the teachers wore black to the middle school to protest something the administration did....

the high jinks never stop!

Anonymous said...

So here's the plug to arp148.com/blog wherein I attack the knot by looking at the whole enchillada as a (broken) system. It's intended to be a two part site.

One part is a blog/recruitment center/research tool/vent on the system as it is now and how it could be in a different model.

The other part (not born yet) will be the model that grows out of part one.

Sorry, I didn't know how to hot link in here and didn't want to throw in renegade html so you'll have to type in the URL

SteveH said...

Paul, I got this from your site:

"... start with four ’structural’ fundamentals:

a) It must incorparate milestones for mastery
b)It must provide for practice
c)It must provide for ability grouping
d)It must incorporate a feedback loop that driven by A, B, and C"


I'll agree with that, but our public schools don't. Before structure comes philosophy and assumptions. Our schools do the opposite of ability grouping. They do full inclusion through 8th grade. The only exceptions are for math and languages in 7th and 8th grades. Because of full inclusion, they set very low milestones. For example, they don't require mastery of adds and subtracts to 20 until the beginning of third grade, and they use Everyday Math which is based on the idea that mastery of the material at any one time is not important. As you know, EM uses "Math Boxes" in later grades to help students catch up on mastery. It's a very delayed and poor feedback loop, and its for the students, not the teacher. Teachers cannot possibly monitor and control that feedback loop.

They also have the K-6 philosophy (which ties in with full inclusion) that kids will learn when they are ready. This makes it almost impossible to provide a functional feedback loop. The onus is clearly on the kids and parents. Schools just go through the motions. In the later grades, kids are supposed to take responsibility for their own learning, which can cover up for lots of poor teaching and curricula.

There is NCLB, which does force our schools to care a little bit about results, but the cutoffs are very low. Our schools find these minimums are easy to reach while still using poor curricula. My son's sixth grade is all about art work. Last night he had to finish up a drawing of an African mask (copying an existing one) and draw a cartoon strip.

The system won't look broken if you agree with these assumptions. I can make a detailed case to support your structure, but this would really be a differet opinion to them. They might know that ability grouping and mastery would be better for some kids, but they feel that they have other considerations that are more important.

I think the key has to do with assumptions and who gets to decide; the school or parents. It's been mentioned by others that the role of the parent trumps all except for education. Only if you have the money or if you want to homeschool do you retain that control.

I know that other parents like unschooling or constructivist approaches to education. I don't want to force my assumptions on them just like I don't want our school system to force their assumptions on me. School choice is a solution to differences in assumptions and expectations, but it doesn't guarantee a good education. Then again, parents can choose to stay at the same school.

The question is who should decide on educational assumptions and expectations; the parents or the school? This is not the same as having parents create and implement a curriculum. All parents have to do is to evaluate their choices and select the best school for their kids. It is quite clear that many in the educational world do not want to give up their control. They are afraid that many parents will say "no thank you".

Anonymous said...

"Sorry, I didn't know how to hot link in here and didn't want to throw in renegade html so you'll have to type in the URL ..."

or, rather, cut-and-paste it.
but linking is easy.

LEFT ANGLE BRACKET
A HREF="http://arp148.com/blog"
RIGHT ANGLE BRACKET
When Galaxies Collide
LEFT ANGLE BRACKET
/A
RIGHT ANGLE BRACKET

(all on one line;
i.e., omit all my carriage returns)
gets it; change the url
and site name appropriately.
the "angle brackets" are
(of course) shift-comma
and shift-period respectively;
angle brackets enclose HTML code.
the "A" denotes "Anchor";
the "/A" means End-of-anchor
(and, in general, /SOMETHING
means end-of-something).

pointing-and-clicking is very often
*much harder* than writing code;
it's a shame that this simple fact
isn't a whole lot better known.