It’s time to re-conceive school administration as a set of tasks rather
than as individual persons. These tasks
can then be distributed within the system, either to make administration
do-able, or, more radically, to eliminate the traditional building level
administrator entirely. Improving
education means reconsidering traditional ideas when those ideas get in the way
of the end goal of the educational enterprise: great student learning.
In my twenty plus years of
teaching/working in Vermont public schools, I’ve worked under fourteen
principals and six superintendents. I
have to temper this assertion by pointing out that, as a rural elementary
school music teacher, I’ve always worked in two schools simultaneously. I’ve been twenty years at one of those
schools, where I have experienced six of those principals and four of the
superintendents, an average tenure of a little over three years for the
principals. The five year average for
superintendents actually exceeds the national average by about two years,
mostly due to our current superintendent having served almost thirteen years
This collection of administrators
has been a mixed bag. As a group, they
lurch from the incompetent, the criminal, and the incoherent, to a handful who
could actually perform enough of the grab bag of tasks that constitute administration
to be considered competent. Proficiency
in administration seems to be less a function of mastery of the craft and more
a question of mere longevity: two of the more ostensibly successful
administrators I’ve served under achieved whatever success largely due to
outlasting their faculties long enough to implement some changes.
Longevity is a pretty low
bar. The task of school administration
itself, however, is impossible. One must
demonstrate skills in curriculum, teacher evaluation, budgeting, scheduling,
contract administration, education law, special education, management of the
physical plant, politics, discipline, transportation, communication, negotiation
and personnel management (not to mention leadership…) I have yet to see the
complete package in any one individual, not because there is anything wrong
with the people themselves, but because the job is itself unreasonable. Proficiency or even distinction in any small
set of these tasks may not be enough to overcome failure in any one area.
Furthermore, administrators are
promoted from the classroom. The
qualities that make one a skilled and effective classroom teacher are not
necessarily the skills that make one an effective administrator - but background
in the classroom is essential to having the “street cred” to run a school. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of assistant principalships in the Vermont to train prospective
administrators.
Anyone that has sat on an administrative search committee in a small town can speak of the thinness of the talent pool. One
often experiences a motley collection of retreads and unproven first timers. In Vermont, the real dance of the lemons
happens not in the teaching force, which tends to be stable and competent, but
in the ranks of administration. The
plethora of small community schools in our state means we have a demand for a
large number of administrators relative to the student population. Then we spend a lot of money hiring people to
do impossible work.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and School Improvement Grants (SIG) have exacerbated the talent pool problem by creating job instability for principals - who in their right mind would want a job where you face being fired for reasons not under your direct control? Every one of the four turnaround models involve firing the principal, and absent a sensible re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) - or a waiver - 100% of schools face being identified as failing and therefore on the path to firing their principal by 2014. This year 72% of Vermont schools failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP.)
Please don’t interpret this post as an
indictment of every administrator. I
have worked with some excellent administrators; the problem is that they are
the exception rather than the rule. The rest? Good, well-meaning people plying a 1950's role cursed with 21st century expectations.
Tomorrow Part II: Solutions
No comments:
Post a Comment