COUNTING ON OUR PRINCIPALS

There was a delightful story on the TV show, Sunday Morning (June 1), describing the workings of “one room” schoolhouses in today's America. Apparently, there are quite a few of these around the country. They're limited to rural areas. They are situated in schoolhouses, small in size, big enough to service up to, roughly, thirty students. One teacher runs the show – no principal, no counselor, no registrar; you get the picture. One of the teachers interviewed says she has a teacher's meeting with herself where there is pure agreement with any decisions that are made. What I found most appealing about this approach to education was the absence of bureaucracy. Not only are decisions readily made, but students are not exposed to an officious staff who are there to meet impersonal job roles. They are, instead, exposed to expectations that regular schools do not provide – such as cleaning up the place. While we are talking about only one relatively small building and a limited staff per school, this is not education on the cheap. One room schools are just as expensive to run, on a per student basis, as regular school settings are. As has always been the case, these classrooms have various grade levels in the one class and the students have the same teacher, assuming there is no turnover, year after year. A student who goes through the experience, as indicated by the one student interviewed who did and is now in a regular high school, got just as rigorous a course of study as in a regular school. An interesting aspect of this type of learning is that students eavesdrop on lessons that are meant for older students and, by so doing, get useful hints as to what awaits them in the years to come. The one aspect that seems to be a drawback is, once a student finishes eight years of the one room setting, he or she is thrown into a regular high school with thousands of students. This calls for the student to go through an adjustment period.

Could such an arrangement be tried in large cities? Perhaps the district can convert an ample sized apartment, such as a city situated doctors' office, to accommodate twenty or so students. The “school” can service the kids of the neighborhood who can, in turn, readily walk to school. Such an effort would have to be manned by specially trained teachers. Perhaps keeping track of students, on the district level, would be a nightmare. But the students have the potential to form meaningful bonds with the same teacher over the years. Oftentimes, inner city kids lack this kind of adult relationship. They can potentially identify with that teacher and become close, and this, in turn, can add motivation for the student to do well – to please this nurturer. Will such an arrangement work? I think it is something to think about and perhaps worth trying in limited numbers.

The Sunday Morning story reminded me of a bit of advice I have voiced in this blog several times. There are no “silver bullets” out there that will fix what's wrong with education. Education is a complex business. But Americans seem to be determined to find that silver bullet. So if one reform needs to be tried, then let me take a stab at it. It's fun to think in these terms and perhaps what is suggested here offers some insight into what set of changes should be implemented.

I asked myself: what one educational factor, if changed, would have the most effect on schooling? Most people would point to teachers. As a former teacher, believe me, I do not underestimate the value of a good teacher. But in terms of having the most impact on this institution, I look to the principal.

The leader at a school site, if allowed to be a leader, I believe could have the most effect on how a school is run – either for better or worse. But if the principal becomes the focus of our change efforts, how should we conceive of that position? Regardless of what changes we are willing to try, I believe how we view principals has to be changed. But such changes need to be done in the right context. First, let me state that whatever exact changes are made, parent, teacher, and community representatives should be brought in to discuss those changes. I envision changes being entailed in the contract a principal would sign; they would be spelled out as the exact job description and listing of expectations. What I am offering here is a broad outline of what the principal-ship should look like.

A principal's contract should reflect the demands of a particular school and the community the principal serves. Any school, no matter what the income level of the families served are or other resources the school has, should aim at having the vast majority of its graduates go to college. Why? Because of the demands of our economy. Without a college education today, chances are that an individual will be stuck with employment that will not provide a reasonable level of income to support a family and allow the person to prepare for an adequate retirement. So if this is a general condition, for each school, those charged with hiring a principal should develop, as part of a contract, criteria for judging a school's effectiveness along the lines of this overall goal and the population the school serves. Further, these criteria should be analyzed so that performance can be measured with high levels of sophistication over a five year period, the life of the contract, so that evaluators can see whether the school improves at a reasonable rate. Short of that, this progress should be reasonably measurable on a yearly basis so that a principal can receive formative evaluations that point out where a principal needs to improve. Of course, if a yearly evaluation points to a situation in which the school is seriously heading in the wrong direction, then it can be used to justify dismissing the principal before the five year contract period is completed.

With that, the process of interviewing candidates for the position can begin. Questions asked of these prospective principals should concern how that person sees him/herself and the school staff advancing the school's performance toward the identified aims. The candidate should be able to give a good developmental picture of how progress will occur and what state the school will be in after the five years are over. The prospective principal should be able to describe and explain his/her approach to the job as a detailed philosophy he/she would bring to the position.

Once hired, a principal should be given a great deal of autonomy. The person should be able to hire the staff, beginning with the assistant principals – this responsibility is something school district officials like to hold onto in order to reward or punish administrators throughout the district. Oftentimes, assistant principal positions are given to those incompetents whom district officials don't know where to place. The principal can then hire the teachers he/she feels would help in meeting the aims outlined for the school. While the supply of teachers, at any given time, limits the choices a principal has, he/she can look for, as best he/she can, those prospective teachers who buy into the philosophy the principal has. The conditions of employment for teachers and staff members should include the provision that continued employment is contingent on performing in accordance with the principal's philosophy. Why do I emphasize this element? I see this aspect as a way to promote, if not guarantee, consistency in the experiences the students have in the different classes they attend. Enhancing the consistency that students experience, I believe, is critical to successful instruction but is often disregarded in running schools. I will explain why shortly.

I believe the success of any school would be enhanced by running the school according to federalist principles. But that's me. While I cannot claim that that is the only way to meet success, I do believe that creating a viable community among administrators, teachers, other staff members, students, and parents increases the probabilities that the school will meet expectations of all of its stakeholders. From personal experience, I believe my high school was run by such an approach though the word federalist probably did not occur to any of the people involved. While I was there, that school was successful even though the income level of the school was not very high. It was a Catholic school, so one can consider the school having a built-in unifying philosophy – at least as compared to most public high schools. And while all of the teachers did not belong to the religious order that ran the school, most did. They were members of the order's regional district and were trained in the same teacher training facilities. They followed the philosophy of the founder of the order and reflected also the ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas. My point is, there was consistency in the instruction I received and I, therefore, never questioned the legitimacy of any one teacher. But if a student is meeting up with inconsistency, then when challenged, it becomes too easy for that student to question what a teacher is trying to do. Consistency means that expectations range within limited boundaries. It guards against some teacher being too easy and others being too unreasonably hard. It also helps in establishing the guidelines by which teachers can be evaluated. A student, under this mode, knows what's up. Let me be clear; I am not saying teachers have to agree or believe a particular political view or ideology or agree on social issues. As a matter of fact, diversity in these areas is probably preferred. But in terms of educational philosophy, agreement should be sought.

After the five years, the principal's contract is up and the person, if he/she wants to continue, goes through the process again. Others should be allowed to vie for the position, but an incumbent would probably have an advantage, assuming the identified aims and goals set out five years before have been reasonably met. A change of principal can be very disruptive – given a change at the top could lead to mass changes in the school's personnel. But opening up the process to this degree could protect a community from being stuck with a person who is not performing sufficiently well.

Under this system, other considerations, in terms of prospective principals, should be kept in mind. The person should see being a principal as a lifelong position, not as a step toward a “downtown” job. In order to facilitate this, a bonus system could add incentives. If the school is performing according to predetermined goals and aims, the principal should be given generous bonuses over the years this is accomplished. The district might also consider a bonus lump sum designated for the school so that the principal can distribute it among the staff as he/she sees fit. The district should be on guard against cheating or fudging the numbers. Outside evaluators should be used. This form of compensation would add a degree of power the principal can use to motivate staff and give, for example, a teacher a more tangible sense if he or she is doing a good job.

So, this is how I would change this one factor – my silver bullet. Would it be enough? Short of a comprehensive approach to solving school problems, I do believe addressing the way we look and treat principals would have the most “bang” for our efforts. On what expertise do I base this position? Twenty-five years of classroom experience and a few graduate level courses in administration inform my thinking, but that doesn't make me an expert. What I do feel fairly certain about is that a principal, more than any other person on a secondary school campus, does establish the tone and mood of that school. I have had good principals and I have had awful principals and all of my co-workers knew the difference.