I am starting an honor roll for hero superintendents.
As of now, there are four.
If you know of others, nominate them with your reasons.
They deserve our thanks and praise.
Paul Perzanoski of Brunswick, Maine, stood up to a bullying governor.
John Kuhn of Perrin-Whitt Independent School District is a national model of bravery in opposition to political meddling.
Vickie Markavitch of Oakland, Michigan, spoke out against the state’s mislabeling of districts.
Here is another: Joshua Starr of Montgomery County (Md) public schools.
He did not want his district to participate in Race to the Top funding, and his board agreed.
His district refused to sign the state’s RTTT application.
He opposes the RTTT emphasis on rating teachers by test scores.
He recognizes that NCLB and Race to the Top are a reversion to an “industrial model” of education.
Faced with the bewildering roll-out of federal and state mandates, Starr proposed a three-year moratorium on all standardized tests, “while we figure all this out.”
According to the Washington Post article about him from last April:
“Starr critiqued the growth models and rubrics being developed as contradicting research on what motivates teachers. He said Montgomery’s current system, which mentors struggling teachers for a year before decisions about termination are made, is a “hill to die on.”
And he said that singling out teachers as the culprit for education failures and shaming them is the most “pernicious part of the national reform movement.”
Accountability for student success should rightly extend to “you, me, and the entire community,” he said.
But in the midst of all the flux and change, he struck a hopeful chord. He said the transition could give Montgomery a chance to carve a distinct path.
“As No Child Left Behind is dying its slow death, it’s an incredible opportunity to fill that void with what we believe we should do for kids,” he said.”
Joshua Starr is an educational leader of the highest caliber.
He doesn’t comply and follow harmful orders.
He insists on thinking what is best for students and teachers and the community.
From what I’ve read of Peer Assistance and Review, I find it a far better way for teachers to develop their craft than the value-added-based approaches reformers push.
PAR works. A few hundred poorly rated teachers left after peer assistance and review. They were judged by their peers and found wanting.
Having looked at this new RTTD grant (and listened to the webinar late in a friday of a holiday weekend) it does have some promising pedagogy expectations. I wonder if we can incorporate a quality teacher evaluation system into it?
I suggested a peer review system on several posts, but many, most notably LG, argued that it would destroy the school.
I know Montgomery county is the tenth wealthiest county in the US according to Forbes, but perhaps this model could be used in less affluent areas of the country.
It’s an honor to serve under Josh Starr in Montgomery County, MD. He is a very approachable Superintendent (day one: call me Josh). He travels extensively to all the schools in the county, which is quite a feat. He knows the dangers of too much testing. He tweets regularly (MCPS and MCPSSUPER).
And yes, our PAR system is good. It’s detailed here:
Click to access PAR2012-13MCEAGuide.pdf
One of the things I like most about PAR is this. If a teacher is found to be not teaching at an acceptable level, they aren’t just tossed under the bus. As we all know on this blog, there can be a multitude of reasons why someone is not teaching well, or maybe not as well as they used to. That teacher, once identified, gets help from a Consulting Teacher, who is a long time teacher of that subject. The two teachers work together for a year on helping the teacher become better, in whatever area(s) they need help in. At the end of the year, the PAR panel decides if the teacher has improved and can stay, or if the teacher should then be let go.
Bringing on new teachers is an expensive process and a big investment for the local community. Canning them after some bad test scores, without first trying to help that teacher correct any deficiencies, is a waste of taxpayer money. PAR helps preserve that investment.
It seems to be clear that education solutions are best developed at the local level, not by the Department of Education. Another reason to disband this bloated bureaucracy.
We need to keep trying to get the “bloated bureaucracy” to realize that local levels do have good ideas that work. The bureaucrats need to adopt a few.
I nominate my former (recently retired) superintendent of Lafayette School Corporation Dr Ed EILER. Dr EILER has opposed the educational reform that is bad for kids…including vouchers. He is suing Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana and Tony Benett, state superintendent of education, to try to get vouchers stopped. He is always supporting kids and teachers…he truly is a hero!
Karen,
Can you send some links to newspaper articles or any documents to support your nomination?
Diane
Thank you for adding Joshua Starr. He really stood up for his students and teachers and refuses to evaluate teachers based on test scores. . If you wish to supply a link to his name, may I suggest http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/education/06oneducation.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1323232652-ThKcupl/zsGCYUTfcsiamA
Done
Diane