By Travis
Principals are near useless. Near…I would not be so mean as to say totally. I know they serve a purpose. But, hey, let’s be honest. How often is your principal in your classroom? If you are lucky, it is twice a year for the district mandated formal observation. Principals do not teach classes so how could a principal possibly understand life in your classroom? They cannot relate. When seen in the big picture, principals do not do much to impact instruction, and as such, are near useless.
However, my principal is not. Lisa teaches.
Lisa came into my classroom and team taught over several weeks. She planned lessons that helped to further student progress toward the goal. This team teaching started with a shared interest in group work dynamics within a high school setting. I offered up my classroom as a place to do action research, and she accepted.
Oh yeah, she did this with my 6th period class.
I watched her teach. I made mental notes of great strategies that worked. She read, provided informal assessment, and flexed to whatever needs the students had. As a colleague, we debriefed at the end of the day. She even, as most teachers do, brought supplies to class that she either had or bought.
This is not just an isolated event.
Lisa has team taught with other teachers, sharing ideas, building instructional strength, doing action research. She works with teachers outside of the school day, constantly pushing the idea of how we can impact the learning of our students.
Lisa teaches when we have staff meetings. She does not shy away from pushing our thoughts. She constructs deep discussions that leave staff uncomfortable, but a good uncomfortable—one that makes you reflect.
There is no other way to look at it. My principal is a teacher, and it is great.
You may be surprised by a principal who teaches, but what should not surprise you is that my principal is also a NBCT.
If you invited your principal to team teach with you, would she? Why don’t you find out.
Betsy, good point. I had not taken principals in the classroom out to that length of pondering. True. If a principal, or any person, is evaluating another, the evaluator needs to be versed and able within that area of evaluation.
I can easily evaluate writing, but I am not a writer so the extent to which I can effectively evaluate a piece of published writing should be under question. Two years ago, Oregon had a measure to create teacher evaluations. I am for that, in theory. I would do well with an evaluative system as there are bonuses for that system. However, what concerned me with the measure is that it was pushin to be passed but the WHO did the evaluating would be led up to the district to decide. In can imagine some personnel in district central getting moved to teacher evaluation. Someone who previously did accounting and was not a teacher.
It is the same with principals and my concern would be the same.
I took two years off from teaching to raise my sons. I am a teacher and taught in university classes during that time. In that two years, my teacher skills, not being used in a public school, began to weaken. Teaching is a skill and like any skill, when it is not in use, the skill weakens. In addition, it took me awhile to get back into the swing of school as it had progressed while I was out. I guess my point is that if I, a teacher, knows what two years can do, I can imagine what being a principal with a different role in the school (a valid role) can do to the perspective of teacher evaluation. An evaluation that must go beyond theory of teaching which I know principals know because their district and their state push a meta-narrative.
Does it matter if a principal can model High Leverage Teaching Moves? (HLTM’s are the new thing in these parts.)
I say yes, and here’s why:
The state of Washington is moving to a new teacher evaluation system. While every district will have their own take on that, it is more rigorous, which is great. BUT, how are these evaluations callibrated? If a principal is rarely in classrooms (regardless of the reasons), how can they justify accurate evaluations? I have not heard anything about the training process for these evaluations. Unless a principal is regularly in classrooms in their own building as well as in other buildings, how can they accurately assess teachers? A rubric is most effective when a wide variety of examples are to be had of each performance level.
Maybe even the perception of useless is worth starting a conversation. If teachers are not lucky enough to have the kinds of administrators that you both have (Travis and Tom), that teacher could easily cultivate the perception that their principal does nothing for them or their students. We had a building principal a few years back who was a very nice man, and was also very easy to find because he never left his office. When we’d mention his name to students–even in his second year as principal–the kids would ask “Mr. Who?”
In large building like mine (we have five… FIVE administrators!) each certainly fills a different role. And I feel differently about each administrator based really on two simple criteria: (1) how do they treat me when we are in conflict and (2) to what degree do I consider them an effective classroom teacher. Luckily, two were teacher-colleagues of mine before they became admin, so I knew them as teachers both from reputation as well as observation before they became admin–and thus, these two are the two I hold in highest regard. Is that fair to the other three? Maybe not, but when I believe that my superiors understand teaching-in-practice more than they understand teaching-in-theory or edupolicy buzzword trends, then I have more faith. If I had the chance to see any of the other three teach–even for a few lessons–perhaps I’d hold them all to equally high esteem.
So maybe the question is whether it matters what I think of them…
Hyperbole.
Fair enough, and maybe I’m perseverating a little too much, but when I go back and re-read your first paragraph, it sure looks to me like you’re saying that a principal who isn’t teaching in a classroom is “near useless.” Is this hyperbole on your part? Because if it’s not, then you’re calling my principal “near useless.” And that, my friend, is inaccurate.
Tom, I, as well, do not see the principal as “super teacher,” promoted because of their superness. Principals are often called administration because they are, in fact, as you feel, in charge I administrative needs.
I also did not want to imply that my principal is a super teacher because she taught in my classroom. She is a principal and a great one. But in addition to her great administrative roles, she promotes instruction.
However, and I am sure we do not disagree on this, a principal could go one step further and promote insteuctional efficacy. Think about the principal as the manager of a baseball team. The manager’s job is to create playing efficacy and if that means managing, yes. If it means getting coaches in there to promote playing strengths, yes. If that means showing a player what is wanted by demonstrating himself, yes. Or working with the team because he is interested in a new strategy.
My principal manages, but she also finds time to play.
I guess what I see the role of principal differently. I see principals more as “support personnel;” former teachers who moved into administration because the idea of running a school sounds more appealing than the idea of teaching in a classroom. I don’t see principals as “super teacher” who got promoted because of their classroom expertise.
I see two completely different jobs, with two completely different skill-sets, Travis. Neither is more important than the other.
Tom, go ahead and take exception. And if your principal is like that, he may be an exception as well.
I wonder how your principal feels about not having enough time to be an educational leader. Would that be akin to a teacher saying that he does not have enough time to model the skis he is teaching his students? In neither case would I hold it against the person; there is just too much asked of everyone in education. Too much, not enough time, not enough money.
Your principal sounds great, Travis, but I have to take exception to your opening line. My principal, like many, simply doesn’t have the time to get into classrooms, but that doesn’t make him “near useless.”
He simply isn’t a classroom teacher. He used to be, but now he’s not. He’s very useful at what he does, but what he does isn’t teaching.
My principal, who doesn’t teach, does the myriad of useful things which allows the rest of to teach. He handles parent phone calls, he works with district administration, he applies for grants, he manages the budget, and he deals with students who get sent to him to be dealt with.
He doesn’t teach, but he certainly isn’t nearly useless.
This ought to be required for all principals…especially those charged with evaluating teachers (which is all of them, I think).
Can I come work in your building? That is the kind of leadership & collaboration I am craving.