While the teacher negotiations going on in Seattle are getting a lot of ink, another contract is also under discussion that arguably could have an even deeper impact on student achievement: the principals’ contract. As we’ve written in this blog, building leadership — the principal’s capacity to lead — is hugely important in student learning and building-wide performance. Great teachers can exist almost anywhere, but great schools only exist where the principal is great. If you use a sports analogy, it makes sense; great teams have great leaders.
Looking at the current contract under discussion in Seattle, it makes sense that teachers would want or even demand great principals. Whether it’s the evaluation system or professional development and mentoring, you want your boss to be able to fairly and effectively identify your strengths and weaknesses. I’ve worked for great bosses and not-so-great bosses and I know the great ones made me better. The not-so-great bosses only made me better at knowing what I didn’t want in a boss. Well, that and gaming the system. If you lack trust or respect in a boss, knowing how to move the game pieces around the board without them is a huge asset. I’m guessing this asset isn’t lost on teachers with weak principals.
The need for strong principals is (understandably) one of the big sticking points in whether to give over to a new system of evaluation, compensation, professional development and hiring. We know what those systems under consideration look like. They’ve been shared widely. It would help to know what systems of accountability, training and evaluation are being considered for the principals. How do they align with the new expectations of the (voluntary) SERVE program? Are we focused on the right skill sets in hiring our principals? The questions do go on. But one thing is clear, trust won’t be won by saying “trust me.” The more assurances we can give our teachers that they will be treated — evaluated, supported and compensated — fairly, the better. The less we hear on those assurances the easier it is to fear, distrust and dig in and the easier it is to understand that reaction.
Strong and effective leaders. What’s the plan for that?
Chris! You’re back! How are you coming along with that review of P G and E that you said you would do on August 11?
This is what accountability looks like. It is hard to demand and inspire accountability in others when you are unwilling to be accountable yourself.
That’s the problem with Seattle Public Schools; all of the accountability is getting built into the bottom with none at the top.
The Board is completely unaccountable. They have utterly failed in every aspect of their job, but no one seems to care.
The superintendent is completely unaccountable. Not only does the Board refuse to supervise her, she gets kid glove treatment by the media and groups like the Alliance and the LEV. How many rules does she have to break before her cheerleaders notice? How many projects have to go overbudget and overdue before her cheerleaders notice? Hasn’t anyone noticed that after three years of talk about accountability we have yet to see a single example of it? Hasn’t anyone noticed that our student achievement hasn’t risen? Hasn’t anyone noticed that despite all of the talk about Strategic Plan and Initiatives and all of the money spent on consultants, none of it has changed what happens in classrooms for students? If we were really serious about closing the academic achievement gap and bringing every student up to Standard, then wouldn’t we have a plan designed to achieve that goal? Wouldn’t we be finding every student working below grade level and providing that student with the support he or she needs to catch up? Why aren’t we doing that? Why isn’t anyone holding her accountable for devloping and implementing a plan to achieve our stated goal? Why is everyone okay with her doing more of the same?
The rest of the central adminstration is also unaccountable. Lots of broken rules and violated policies all over the place. Did you read the audits? It’s not just little stuff; it’s a pervasive culture of contempt for the rules, laws, and policies. The central adminstration grows and grows and adds nothing for the students in the classrooms. The big idea for reform is to re-arrange the principals who report to the education directors by geography instead of grade level. Wow. That is a totally useless and meaningless reform.
The principals, now that you have finally mentioned them, are also completely unaccountable. Will they be judged based on student test scores? Will they be judged on staff turnover? If there is an incompentent teacher in a classroom, isn’t that because the principal is too lazy or too timid to move that teacher out? Isn’t every incompetent teacher evidence of an incompetent principal?
The LEV talks about a revolution, but the partners in the revolution are all the people who are already in control at the top of the organization. That’s no revolution. The change they want doesn’t impact classrooms. That’s not an education revolution. The real revolutionaries who have been part of the struggle for decades are not on board – they aren’t even welcome in the camp. That’s not a revolution.
When your education revolutionaries start talking about the changes they want to make for students – instead of the changes they want to make in the teacher contract – then you will see people take you seriously. Where is that plan?
“But one thing is clear, trust won’t be won by saying “trust me.” The more assurances we can give our teachers that they will be treated — evaluated, supported and compensated — fairly, the better. The less we hear on those assurances the easier it is to fear, distrust and dig in and the easier it is to understand that reaction.
Teachers need to feel support, not fear. They need to know that principals who review them will do it with professionalism and strict guidelines. They need to know that principals, too, are to be held accountable for their work.
Strong and effective leaders. What’s the plan for that?”
Yes, yes, yes and Charlie, it’s a start.
Seattle Public Schools hasn’t described how they will use student test data to evaluate teachers. What’s their algorithm? They haven’t developed it yet, but they want the teachers to buy this pig in a poke because the District smiles and says “Trust me”.
Of course, the union WAS trusting them when they were working together for the past two years to develop a new teacher evaluation. They were collaborating on it. They were working in partnership. They were building trust. Then the superintendent came along, tore up that work, and pushed forward her SERVE proposal.
Why in the world would anyone trust Seattle Public Schools? When has the District EVER kept a commitment? And why should the teachers accept a proposal to have their work evaluated according to an algorithm that hasn’t been written yet?
“another contract is also under discussion that arguably could have an even deeper impact on student achievement: the principals’ contract.”
Principals have a deeper impact on acheivement, so you’re only just now getting around to mentioning their negotiations? After months of slamming teachers, now you bring up their principals? What, you just now noticed principals, or the fact that principals have a deeper impact on achievement wasn’t convenient to the Reform argument that “teacher quality” is paramount?
Nicely timed. You’re done bashing teachers because you’ve already done the work to skew public perception about teachers as they get ready to vote next Thursday; NOW you can mention those other people, principals, and say how they are even more important to achievement.
Can we next expect a thread on superintendent contracts? I’m sure teachers would love a contract that offers bonuses when they acheive a mere four out of twenty of their goals.
LEV. could you comment on the superintendent’s board seat on the company that sells Seattle the MAP test, the very inaccurate results of which would be used to “evaluate” teachers?
The superintendent is on the board of NWEA. NWEA is earning millions of dollars selling MAP to SPS. Can you tell us what you think about this?