Disclaimer to all administrators past, present, and future: I am sure you are all wonderful people. Work hard, care about students. Just wonderful. Smiley folks. Perhaps even a bit jollier than the average person. Smarter, too, I reckon. However, a colleague of mine just started his administration program and I have to admit, I felt a bit of sadness.
A colleague of mine, one of my favorite teachers with whom to talk, ponder, and teach is starting his administration program. Why? Why trade in teaching for administration? Surely that is not trading up; it is not even a horizontal move.
For some reason (and if you are an education historian, please chime in) there is often this opposite-sides thing that goes on between teachers and administrators. Even there, in that last sentence, the two groups could have been classified as “staff” or “faculty” or “people who wish to further the learning of America’s youth” but it cannot; the two groups are rarely placed together. Can’t, as if governed by some ancient law. This situation is paralleled in the business model with managers and workers. In some situations it works and the company is happy all around (Pixar). Sometimes not so much (Ford). Same with schools. And in both business and education, there are few happy models out there.
Strange, isn’t it, when the goal of teachers and administrators is the same—education. But administrators are the boss and are therefore out of reach, out of touch, out of bounds, and out of your league. And teachers are just lowly workers, grinding away daily, unappreciated, unloved, wholly without support. Something like that.
My colleague’s first class was education law; a class I am sure he enjoyed. He is a thoughtful, brilliant man concerned with all aspects of education and willing to think, truly think about what is best. In short, a good man for a leadership position (Leadership, a class he will take this summer). I would love for him to be an administrator. I would love to work with him, but given the way schools work, would I be working under him?
Often you will hear a new emphasis in the word–adminisTRAITOR–which people find funny, cleverly said in staff lunchrooms as if it was the first time this word-play existed. This underscores the prejudice for the position of administrator. Even I decided to play with the word by adding the emphasis to the middle—adminiSTRAYtor, as my colleague could be seen as straying from the enlightened path.
There is part of me that sees the division between the two jobs played out in schools everyday when, philosophically, there should not be such a division. Perhaps this division is an unconscious carry-over from those prehistoric education days on the savannas of Africa when the tasks of hunting the woolly math-moths and the eraser-toothed tigers with Vis-A-Vis markers in hand were broken up into the “you hunts” and the “we leads.”
It should be an asset to have administrators—those who can lead and deal with the stress and pressures from the community, district, state, board and all other things I do not care for–become administrators. Perfect. Leave the teaching to me.
My buddy jokingly referred to his administration program as "going to the dark side" which I think sums up the greater consensus in the field of education. Whether it is true or not, this is often how it is seen. In that statement are all of the myths and truths of the administrator. (Just for the record, Aniken Skywalker, later Darth Vader, was strong and caring and wanted to help as many people as he could and used his skills for good. However, his frustrations and lack of patience lead him to the easy path, the “dark side”, and it is here that Aniken became Vader. But then, in a feat of humanness only possible in the cinema, Darth Vader turns good again and helps to bring the galaxy to balance—yeah!)
Who cares? Well, I do because in this divide creates an inefficiency in education that ultimately effects students.
But hey, what do I know? The administrators in my recent past were all fantastic leaders who clearly had the vision of the students in mind while keeping the support of the teachers. Real smiley, decent folk.
Points to Ponder:
• Is it beneficial to have more than one administrator in a building?
• What are the benefits of an administrator continuing to teach, or be active in the classroom?
• Nationally Board Certified teachers as administrators…..OOooohhhhhh, cool.
• In elementary schools, there is usually one principal. This encourages the principal and teachers to work collaboratively for the greater good of student learning. Not working with the teachers would surely place too much work on the principal (and to not work with the principal is a sure way to not get anything done) so the elementary set-up allows for greater collaboration between the two groups.
• Is the “dark side” only an administration thing?
• How can teachers improve the relationship between admins and teachers?
• How can admins improve the relationship between teachers and admins?
• A principal should be the philosophical leader of the school with a vision to guide the students to greatness. However, the principal often gets bogged down with discipline and school improvement plans. How can we better give the power of leadership back to the principal so that he or she can lead and work with the teachers, providing that mentoring and support that teachers truly want, but are reluctant to get from the person who holds their yearly review?
• Could teachers divvy up the tasks of principals and do away with the position? Is there a desire to do so? (How many teachers do you know who want to do yet another binder of school redesign?)
I will respond to the blog you posted about
“administraytion” which I totally disagree with. However I will point
out, now and in my response to your blog posting, that I am coming at
this from the perspective of someone who has not been an administrator
in a public school but rather a private school where I have much more
influence on everything that goes into the school. For example, I choose
who works here, I choose the curriculum, textbooks, resources, programs,
procedures, and although I do not create the school’s policies, I make
recommendations to the school board who accepts me as the educational
expert on the school board and most often goes along with my
suggestions. I even set and create the budget which allows me to plan
for facilities, programs, and equipment for the school’s growth.
I do all of this with staff, and parent input and allow their input with
my vision to guide the school, however in the end, it is nice be able to
make most decisions which have an impact on student learning and school
environment right here on campus and not having them handed down to me
from the district office.
In my opinion, to fix schools, we should move to a more business like
model. And by business like model I mean that parents have a choice of
where to send their kids and if not enough parents choose to send their
kids to your school then like any business it shuts down because you can
not maintain revenue. I love this about my school. There are other
schools that I have to compete with for students. If parents do not
like what is going on in this school, they will choose to send them
elsewhere which means lost revenue. Although I report to my school
board and in the end they are the ones who sign my contract, I am really
responsible to the parents, who make up my school board. I have to
listen to their input, adjust the school’s practices, procedures, and
resources to their liking and the students benefit otherwise I lose
their patronage. The teachers and the rest of the staff understand this
too. Their paychecks are not guaranteed by the school district or
government but rather guaranteed by the number of students that are
sitting in the classes.
We all work together on a common vision. We need to produce the best
educational experience possible in order to make the school viable which
provides us with our jobs. Sounds a bit selfish to work to keep our
jobs, but it really does make sense and if we focus on providing the
best education possible for our students, then we are guaranteed to not
only keep our jobs but should actually be able to enhance our work
environment. In the last few years we have been working really hard to
improve the school in all areas. Our efforts have paid off and we have
seen an 80% increase in enrollment. The 80% increase in enrollment has
meant more revenue which means we have been able to invest even more in
the school’s facilities, resources, and educational programs. It has
also meant that we have been able to increase staff benefits and pay.
There has been a direct reward for improving our school, beyond
intrinsic satisfaction for improved test scores.
In response to your suggestion that there does not need to be an
administrator, it would not work here. We need someone, who is
completely free from classes to attend to all of the administrative work
it takes to build budgets, plan facilities, write grants, sign
paychecks, coordinate material orders, liaise with the community, etc.
etc. etc., in fact I wish I had one more full time administraightor,
notice my play on words, to straighten out all the kinks that go along
with running a business, in this case a school.
[Pat] you mention that a teacher-run school would have not worked in your situation and I agree. I also think that there are few situations where a teacher-run school would work or be best because teachers want to teach. If teachers were to run a larger school, they would have to give up some of the teaching. I am please that you have worked for good principals. I have also. However, I have found that my experience is the exception when talking with people around the state and country. What do you think?
I think a lot depends on the person who is the administrator. I have worked for a wonderful principal and assistant principal who became my friends. I know they were the decision makers but they always had conversations with the teachers before making a decision. There has to be a boss though who makes the ultimate decision which sometimes does not make some teachers happy but that person needs to see the big picture where teachers tend to be focused on their immediate situation. I taught in a school with 2400 students and over 100 teachers so I don’t think a teacher run school would have worked.
This is a really interesting discussion, but I think there is one key element that is a huge motivator for some people to “go over to the dark side,” and that is money. I have known quite a few teachers who become administrators not because they really think that they can rule the school, but because they can’t afford to remain teachers and still raise their families. Their hearts are in education, but their pocketbooks are crying out for more. They don’t necessarily make the best administrators because they don’t necessarily have the right mind set (or skill set) to lead.
[Nancy] The National Board is currently developing a certificate for accomplished principals, similar to the NB Certification process for teachers. Interesting, huh? I am trying to wrap my brain around what will happen when principals do not achieve certification.
I have been in several different situations and groups where I heard of this coming down the pike. I think it is great. If it can do for principals what it does for teachers (focus, reaffirm, back to the standards), then it will be a great program. One thing that intrigues me is the principal part. Here again, there is almost this divide between the principal and everyone else (the staff). NBPTS, the “T” stands for teacher. Sure counselors are through this as well, but one could argue that a counselor is more like a teacher than an administrator. So I will be curious how NBPTS sells the idea while maintaining the focus on teachers.
Nancy brings up a point of what will happen when/if a principal does not certify. That situation is there for teachers, but, and I think this is the part that Nancy is wrapping her brain around, if a principal, the leader, does not certify, what would the district do? Would the district just continue on and let the principal go for an advanced certification? Or would the district feel compelled to do something to “support” the principal in the “failure”? This is what would keep principals from getting the certification. Principals would be putting themselves out much more that teachers for this process and the results would be more problematic. Why take the chance, is what an administrator would say. There is no reason to do the certification, and certainly less reason than that for a teacher.
It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.
[Travis] NBPTS strengthens teachers because it helps those that are certificate worthy to get back to the core principles and standards for their craft, their subject. This could be done for principals as well, but is not. I think the lack of desire to do this is from the idea that principals are the boss and therefore do not need to adjust and that the focus is always on the teacher for improving the students since it is the teacher that has the most contact with the student.
[Nancy] The National Board is currently developing a certificate for accomplished principals, similar to the NB Certification process for teachers. Interesting, huh? I am trying to wrap my brain around what will happen when principals do not achieve certification.
You have the makings of a series of blogs here. What policies and incentives would give us a better pool of candidates for school administration? What training would make all principals more like the ones you had?
Nancy,
I think a teacher run school could work, would work. However, I think the current model of having an administrator would be an easier one to fix than to create a teacher run school. In the end, most of those teacher run schools would probably adopt something that resembled having an administrator in full, or at least through having many teachers share a portion of the admin responsibilities.
So I say there is a greater chance for change with improving school principalships just like there is a greater chance for change by improving teacherships through NBPTS. In both cases, it is using what is already there, a good idea, and going back to the core principles (ha! a pun) of what the job holds.
NBPTS strengthens teachers because it helps those that are certificate worthy to get back to the core principles and standards for their craft, their subject. This could be done for principals as well, but is not. I think the lack of desire to do this is from the idea that principals are the boss and therefor do not need to adjust and that the focus is always on the teacher for improving the students since it is the teacher that has the most contact with the student. (Having said all of that, I am not unaware of the pressures and responsibilities that fall on the heads of principals.)
But back to the point, I think the way to go is not to create teacher-lead schools, but for the role of principal to have a core principle of getting the school to work like a team. I have worked for 3 quite strong principals who all shared some qualities that I believe helped to create the cohesion in the school.
1–Having a strong focus (a vision) for the school and being comfortable with saying “no” to a teacher if what the teacher asked for did not match the goal; as well as directing teachers who were lost on the goal to the goal.
2–Being comfortable with saying (even openly until is was clear to all) that he/she does not have the answer and would like to work with others to find the answer.
3–Delegating tasks and activities to teachers who wish to take up that task. (There are so many things that I wish to do, but the school as a whole may not so the principal gives me the go-ahead to pursue those things.) Roland Barth has a great book on this called Improving Schools from Within.
4–Fewer staff meetings rather than more. I know this sounds counterintuitive, but it has shown its strength in three great leaders. Staff meetings are a waste of time. They just are so if a principal limits them, less time is wasted.
5–Adequate, dare I say “abundant”, is made available for teachers who wish to collaborate, talk, discuss policy or philosophy, or to work on targeting students who need something.
6–Creation of informal gatherings that come across as celebrations (i.e., it is the start of a new school year) where teachers and staff can hang out and interact on a personal level. Everyone needs to trust and feel comfortable with the people with whom they work.
7–Not giving any time to the silly little things that are, for lack of a better word, stupid and pull the school down. Silly things like emotions in the school that divide the school. Silly things like how to proceed on consequences for students who have chosen to chew gum more than three times. Silly things like so-and-so leaves school early.
By the way, I think businesses are more apt to make that change to flatten the interaction hierarchy because they are a private group and can make changes, in theory, just by wanting to. Also, if they do not evolve, they die and are no longer profitable so there is a huge incentive. I believe that this incentive does not exist for schools. Sadly, the punishment of having your school closed or a teacher being judged based on test scores is a future reality and one that many see as the “incentive” to the need for schools to evolve. However, unlike the business situation, schools are given the mandate to evolve, but none of the power to evolve into what they need to.
Heard Around the Building During Beginning School Year PD
Last weeks edition can be found over at Education Wonk.
Next Weeks Edition will be hosted by 2 Pass the Torch who asks that you submit entries that highlight good news about young people.
We agreed to host the carnival but unbeknownst to us, t…
Interesting post, Travis–you raise a number of issues about “the way things are” and whether they need to be that way. A quick look at the literature on management and leadership–Deming, Senge, even Collins–tells us that businesses are re-examining their assumptions. If progressive businesses can get rid of fear and flatten their hierarchal structures, why can’t schools?
Have you considered the fact that many administrative job descriptions are so swollen that almost nobody could accomplish all the listed skills and duties. So principals perhaps gravitate toward the things they’re most comfortable with: discipline rather than instructional leadership, for example, or helping teachers rather than making the building run smoothly.
There are teacher-led schools…not many, but there are some. How do you think that would work?
Nancy
TL, that is the crux isn’t it…how to build a relationship when there is not time built into the day, let alone life, and certainly not in a 8am-4pm school workshop day. It just does not work. I have worked with only a handful of educators in my life where we truly reached that level of trust and familiarity with which magic is created. That level where you just teach and know that the other person will chime in, direct, or do what is necessary. It is not longer a staged production between two adults for kids; it is a true, learning situation. It is a beautiful thing and I can testify that the research would show this to be a stronger model for education. A model of education where teachers, staff as a whole, everyone had a strong working relationship. If you can hang out with your principal and talk about your kids, then you are human. If you can listen to your principal take about her sailing adventures, she is human. The bond is there. Respect. Trust.
I think you put an interesting perspective on the admin/teacher relationship.
Logistically (and realistically) it’s impossible to be “friends” with everyone, so how does an “unknown person” build trust when there are stereotypes, misperceptions, etc. about his/her role?