This is a fascinating article from the Texas Observer that explores the myth of the hero superintendent, the popular delusion that one transformational leader can “save” a school district. The idea was shaped by the Rhee story, the TIME cover implying that she held the secret to “fixing America’s schools,” a myth that persists despite the absence of any objective evidence.
The focus of the article is the first year of Dallas superintendent Mike Miles, who arrived as a superstar and barely survived an effort to fire him a year later.
The good news in the story is that belief in the hero superintendent idea–the man or woman who rides in as a miracle-worker on a white horse–is fading. Common sense is slowly returning. Maybe.
Improving schools requires teamwork, collaboration, professionalism, and a steady course. Stars come and go. The builders are steady, reliable, consistent, persistent, dedicated to ideals greater than themselves.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Agreed. There are no single superstars… long lasting improvements do “require teamwork, collaboration, professionalism, and a steady course” – informed by use of various forms of data to help show what’s working, and what needs to be informed.
However, as numerous posters have pointed out, a poor supt can be deeply frustrating to talent, caring people working in schools, and a bad principal can have a toxic inpact on folks working in the school.
Yes, and I think we can all agree that kittens are cute.
In case you’re wondering what that has to do with anything, that’s good because that’s the same thing I’m wondering about your post. You have this way of saying something utterly uncontroversial like it’s some insightful point that somehow supports your position.
You just made my day and puppies, too.
Progress sometimes happens when people who disagree on some things find things they do agree about, and then work together.
That’s how among other things, a broad, liberal/conservative, left/right coalition developed that successfully challenged the NCAA on very questionable things they were doing to district & charter high schools all across the country. The coalition included everyone from Jonathan Kozol to Jeanne Allen, plus a variety of individuals and organizations.
Great idea, very original. So please call Arne, Bill and Eli and get to work Joe.
Dienne,
Did he just prove your point again?
Linda – 😉
Linda,
How did Dienne make your puppies???
Joe:
Your point is well taken and is not a “kittens are cute” statement. The larger the system the less likely that a change at the top will have a large impact – though as you say there is an asymmetry in that a bad leader than do more harm than a good leader than can do good – in most situations. That said, what does the triumphalism around de Blasio suggest? Will he or won’t he have an impact on NYC schools? Asymmetries abound.
I’ve worked for some excellent superintendents and mediocre ones. The commonality of the good ones is that they were not superstars; they hired good people and supported them. And they stayed awhile.
Good superintendents are often the ones who teachers may not know their names. They didn’t (often) manage from the top down. They made principals, and hence schools, the centerpieces, and they stayed out of the way.
The heroines and heroes are the REAL TEACHERS (not TFA-ers and KIPPers) who have been withstanding far too many years of the deforms and trying their best to meet ALL the needs of their students and families with dimishing funds and fear of retribution for not following the script written by those far away from the classrooms. It’s insane.
What is it about snake oil that is so convincing to folks? It makes perfect sense that hard work and collaboration over the long haul bring improvement but we are ever ready to embrace and enrich a few con artists hoping we can get to a miracle in 5 weeks. The con is always on in the US and I can only hope we’re finally catching on that it is indeed just another scheme to make a cosseted minority rich at the expense of the most vulnerable.
Part of it I think is the typical western need for immediate gratification coupled with the “Believe it to achieve it” thought process. People still want to believe that quick fixes are possible, that “someone” has the answer, that if we only “believe it enough,” we can do anything! As a 40-something, out of shape female, no matter how hard I “believe,” I will never be a super-model. IF I chose to start working out and eating very healthy, I’d improve my health and my looks, but I will never be __________ (insert name of a super-model). IF I want to maximize my health and looks, it will take a LOT of HARD WORK over time… no quick fix, no simple “pill,” no simple “exercise” will cure years of lousy diet and very little exercise… which reminds me, time to get off my butt & go dig out my car.
And I have come to realize that the use of the word “hero” has, always, specific application. For example, when Diane declares someone of hero for public education it means that for the specific cause of public education, they have proven they will stand up for that purpose. They are a hero in terms of what they are fighting for, matching what she is fighting for. Whereas, pre-determined “heroes” for saving public school students while serving a purpose that actually works against the notion of maintaining strong public schools has proven fleeting.
I still think, at the end of the day, there are heroes among us only within certain contexts. We cannot be über-heroes, nor can we wait for them to come and save us. As humans we must create systems and parameters that account for our very human-ness, which will always preclude us from being heroes in unlimited contexts.
But alas, we can all be heroes at something. The trick is finding that something that truly helps the common good. Because there can be a hero for any cause—examining the cause itself is always in order.
The hero superintendent phenomenon was recently reinforced in this blog and in many media outlets: a week ago everyone was waiting breathlessly to see who diBlasio would select to lead NYC schools… the hope being that he would find someone transformative.
The privatization movement thrives on the “hero” narrative. The “great teacher” can be yours if you hire from TFA! The “tough, numbers driven, and uncompromising Principal” can be yours if you hire an MBA or retired military leader. You can get the “transformative superintendent” your district needs if you hire a graduate of the Broad Academy. You can turn your school and/or district around if you contract with the latest miracle for-profit charter organization. Bloggers beware: feeding the “hero” notion is feeding the privatization movement.
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I wasn’t so much hoping he would hire someone “transformative” as fearing he would hire more of the same – Henderson or Byrd-Bennett, for instance. I certainly don’t expect Farina to be “transformative”, especially not single-handedly, but I’m hoping she’ll move things in the right direction by hiring good people and letting them do their jobs. Someone like Henderson would have been “transformative” in a whole different way – she would have transformed what’s left of the public school system to a privatized system.
I would add to the leadership qualities named in this article (e.g. teamwork, persistence, etc.)— instructional vision, what I call an instructional worldview —a coherent response to fundamental questions of how children learn, how knowledge should be organized, what knowledge is of most worth, how should we assess what children understand. The problem with most white horse administrators is their belief that structural/institutional reforms (e.g. valued added teacher evaluation models, sanctioning poor performing schools, firing principals) will cause changes in student achievement. I will return to Dewey and say, what changes a child’s experiences in schools is how a teacher and a school transforms the experiences a child brings to school into disciplined ways of understanding these experiences — this is no easy task—this is where the teamwork, collaboration, persistent come in. Unfortunately, the Superintendents/principals are virtually educational illiterates when it comes to educational philosophy/psychology — even their understandings of popular business paradigms (TQM) are primitive. Having taught graduate administration programs, must also admit they light on curriculum and instruction and heavy on budgets, boilers, and boosters. I describe the process of becoming a strong instructional leader in the my book my the same name (Becoming a strong instructional leader: saying no to business as usual–Teachers College Press:( http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Strong-Instructional-Leader-Business/dp/0807753386/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335271967&sr=1-1)
I thought this was funny. The origin of No Excuses! A Heritage paper from 2000:
“WASHINGTON, APRIL 18, 2000-While the current education debate focuses on money, a new study of low-income schools finds the key to academic excellence is not dollars, but educators who instill a passion for achievement and refuse to accept failure.
In “No Excuses: Lessons from 21 High-Performing, High-Poverty Schools” (Washington, D.C., The Heritage Foundation, 121 pages), Samuel Casey Carter, a Bradley fellow at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, highlights schools whose predominantly low-income Hispanic and African-American students score significantly above the national average in core subjects. The common thread: principals and teachers who demand excellence and reject the notion that poor kids can’t learn.”
It’s the same framing we hear so often now, the conclusory (and really dishonest) argument that anyone who rejects the Heritage approach believes that “poor kids can’t learn”. They say it so it must be true, right?
Also, schools don’t need funding, they just need “passion”! What a convenient finding for the tax-averse Heritage Foundation! 🙂
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/04/no-excuses-for-poor-children-not-to-learn-research-shows
The role of the wealthy power players in influencing the selection of Superintendents in urban districts cannot be ignored. They ally with the ed deformers in continuing the myth of the Superman Superintendent by using their money to buy the person who they perceive will be most able to follow “orders”. The orders are straight out of the ALEC playbook. Control by the wealthy, privatization, union crushing, TFA, etc. are the end result in urban districts now. I work in Buffalo, New York. The game is being very successfully and swiftly played here in our poverty ridden district. Check out our Buffalo News to see how ‘three wealthy men in a room’ came up with a $500,000. bribe to oust our Superintendent (not a Superwoman). This would be step one in the ALEC playbook. Create chaos. Step two would entail the purchase of a malleable Broad Academy Superintendent to do their bidding. They have already afflicted us with TFA, purchased and paid for by one wealthy meddler.
What can be done? Commenting on blogs and posting comments in the newspaper are pointless against the wealthy. We need an anti-ALEC playbook to fight this fight. There is no such document. It seems like nothing can really be done except to comment on the situation.
We see you, weallthy meddlers! We just don’t have enough cash and cordination to fight you!
Well said Isabella, my friend. I’d like to piggyback on your comment. Those same wheelers and dealers brought in a Superintendent whose main purpose was to break the Teacher’s Union. It was a nasty battle, but the BTF is still standing and the superintendent was bought out. The loser was our students. His policies decimated the Buffalo Public Schools. Our new Superintendent has the difficult task of undoing the damage. She’s stepped on a few toes, so after less than a year and a half, “they” want her out. She refused their half million dollar buy out, because she feels she can make a difference and the students are more important to her than the money.
I’m not sure she’s a Super Hero, but she certainly does have integrity and grit. The school board, who has the ultimate say (not the big money players) are split 5-4. The next school board election will determine her fate.
To be continued.
Reblogged this on Roy F. McCampbell's Blog.
Irving ISD, a neighboring district, just hired a new supt. What a contrast to DISD’s detested, investigated supt. Irving’s new supt says he wants to come in and get to know the district; I believe he said he couldn’t presume to know what is needed in Irving. How refreshing.
He also said he wants to include teachers and he recognizes the need for teacher autonomy.
Miles, on the other hand, forces us to follow a ridiculous template because he has a consulting biz on the side and wants to sell what didn’t work in Dallas to other districts.
As I posted yesterday, the current struggle for DISD teachers this week is begging the supt to let us work in on our rooms on Monday to prep for the kids instead of being forced to sit in staff development all day. He may not be in town, though, because his family moved to Colorado.
It’s an issue that underscores the insanity of reformers like Miles–they set teachers up to fail by depriving teachers of the time needed to do their jobs.
20% of DISD teachers quit because of Miles last year and we have hundreds of unfilled vacancies. Miles is just as bad as Michelle Rhee.
While he hasn’t weighed in yet, I think Robert D. Shepherd is on to something. I will return to him at the end…
Consider some of the stars in the educrat firmament like Michelle Rhee, John Deasy and Paul Vallas.
They share a number of characteristics: pride in their lack of expertise and experience in education, frenetic but thoughtless activity, hasty recklessness, imperious attitudes towards those in the classroom—just to mention a few.
KISS addicts: not the rock band but devotees of the Kiss Up Kick Down school of management. Harken back to this pearl of wisdom from Michelle Rhee: “cooperation, collaboration, and consensus-building are way overrated.”
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/31/AR2009103102357.html
A corollary is the maxim “lead by cowardly cruelty,” a subset of that always popular [?] management principle “the beatings will continue until morale improves.” Michelle Rhee inviting John Merrow to film her firing a principal, with the delightful [?] bonus that his humiliation will be viewed nationwide. Or John Deasy firing a substitute teacher, Patrena Shankling, because she was doing her job—as she was required to do—of following the lesson plan left for her by the regular teacher. After all of ten or fifteen minutes of observation! Or Paul Vallas, one who like Rhee never has regrets over masking tape and the like, taking full [?] responsibility for past, present and future destructive actions with the immortal phrase “I go in, fix the system, I move on to something else.”
Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/education/education-of-michelle-rhee/transcript-35/
Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/10/local/la-me-0410-banks-20120410
Link: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Paul-Vallas–213999671.html
Just this morning I read that Kim Jong Un reportedly had his political rival and uncle eaten alive by hungry dogs.
Link: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/03/22156917-kim-jong-uns-executed-uncle-was-eaten-alive-by-120-hungry-dogs-report
So returning to Robert D. Shepherd: the Soviet-style cult of the personality is alive and well in North Korea.
And so too, it seems, among the self-styled “education reformers.”
What was that old phrase, something about not really opposing a bad idea or practice but being envious and wanting to imitate it?
All Hail The Super EduCEO!
😎
P.S. Don’t forget to cheer—I think I hear the sound of very very hungry dogs…
Excellent point. No district, unfortunately, will change due to one superintendent, and no school will change due to one principal, either. But a classroom can still change due to one teacher.
Changemaker:
What happens in the classroom that is so different than a district or a school?
You’re never willing to give any credit to a teacher Bernie, eh?
Always looking for a way to put us down. You couldn’t let the compliment just be.
Linda:
I asked a genuine question that could say provide useful pointers about how principals should interact with teachers and superintendents with principals. Why are you so suspicious? What makes you think I am an less interested in effective education than you are?
Sure whatever makes you feel better Bernie
Bernie,
The classroom is where the actual teaching and learning process takes place (duh to myself, eh). There are and should be very real, very close connections between the teacher and the students that allow the student to be very comfortable in their end of the teaching and learning process.
By definition the school and/or district administration is a step or two or three removed from that process and cannot immediately effect what happens on a daily basis other than through top down edicts that may or may not be implemented.
The way administration SHOULD support teachers is to be a servant to them, supporting and providing them with all the physical, economic and emotional support that it takes to provide a quality environment in which the teaching and learning process can proceed.
Administration as a “service” position, how novel!!
(But then again why would anyone listen to what an older fart high school Spanish teacher of twenty years has to say????)
Duane:
Your comment is interesting. What prevents an administrations from operating as you suggest?
Bernie,
Nothing “prevents” one from operating in this fashion. But starting in the late 90s and early 00s the discourse of education administration changed from one of collaboration (which is only about 1/2 toward what I am suggesting) to one of “leadership”, especially, it seems as “leadership” of the Broad type, top down, militaristic, using force and threats-fear to institute supposedly badly needed changes, i.e., educational standards and standardized testing as the solutions to supposed problems.
I’ve yet to see or hear of a public school administration that follows a service model.
It used to be that the “principal” was the “main/principal” teacher, not a supposed “leader”. Part of my thoughts would involve all administrators teaching at least a class/hour each year with administrators being paid no more than the highest paid teacher.
Bernie,
In your responses to Joanna and Ellen about addressing principals: They don’t give a shit precisely because of the whole “leadership” meme/discourse which puts them (actually they put themselves in that position through subjectivization) in the fear driven mode of administrating (and yes, that’s a new connotation, with a negative sense). I’ve spoken with administrators (especially new ones during the summer so as to soften the blow of my comments throughout the year) and overall if they are told to do something they tell you to do. This year I even asked if my brand new AP was “ordering” me to do a writing exercise because if not I wasn’t going to do it. Well, guess what? I was ordered (reluctantly by him) to do it. As G. Carlin would say “THEY DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK” (or was that D. Coleman or J. King or one of the other edudeformers).
Duane:
Can you say more about the writing exercise? Was it for your students or for the teachers?
I agree with your point about principals teaching. I believe in smaller organizations whenever economies of scale are minimal and smaller schools increase the reasonableness of expecting principals to teach regular classes. They do this in Finland. The power relationship between teachers and their principal will likely change – perhaps something closer to that of an NCO rather than an officer and be based more on perceived competence rather than positional authority.
The writing wasn’t for the students nor the teachers. It was so the administrators could say that they were addressing our supposed “reading and writing” deficiencies as a district. Exactly the type of top down nonsense against which I’ve been railing in this thread.
It was determined that all teachers would practice writing with their students no matter what the subject because, Oh My Friggin Gawd, our reading and writing test scores are low.
So we (and I use that term loosely) came up with the “Warrior Way” of writing, a canned simplistic approach to writing, that is quite frankly absurd, with no training and a rubric to “grade” the writing. We didn’t have to go over with the students the “grading” of the writing (five sentence paragraphs, etc.. . ), didn’t have to do anything with it other than prove that we had done it in at least one class. They wanted to see at least one example of “proficient” writing (by the rubric numbers). I chose my Spanish 4 class (five students) because I knew one or two of them knew how to play the game, which I told them it was. Believe me they were appalled that we would be doing English writing in Spanish class. Need I say more?
What ever became of the writing process?
When I taught second grade we were able to follow the process and write a “report” together. We even did research at an exhibit in the science museum. It was time consuming, but it actually modeled how to research and write a paper. I made it fun.
I was able to do this one other time in my career as a librarian, with another second grade class, with the help of the teacher and some volunteers. It was a lot of work on my part as I had to meet with small groups between my regular classes. I helped them with the research aspect, the teacher did the rest. The results were phenomenal as each child produced a wonderful type written, illustrated report (on various birds). It was a win win win. These kids were low functioning, but were able to do the work (with a lot of assistance) and produce a result which made them proud.
Fitting in meaningful assignments was always a challenge. I was only successful with top notch teachers at my side. (Or they were successful when we worked together – the goal).
Bernie– I will step in and answer that (because I agree with Duane on what an effective administration should do, while also helping keep cohesion in the school). What prevents principals from being like Swacker suggests is the pressures they get from curriculum coaches and intermediate administration at a district level, and the almighty test scores and seeming “best practices” rhetoric.
For example, it was suggested to our arts and PE and media teachers that kids (K-4) do journals in all classes. Principal’s edict. So the kids start showing up to music with pencils (they sit in a semi circle in my room in chairs and we are up dancing, going to instruments, doing games from seats and at stations around the room and I don’t need for them to bring pencils). The curriculum coach did a PLC or staff development presentation on various journaling exercises which was very nice and cool and I do some writing with the children, but mostly we use the 30-40 minutes once a week in music to sing and dance and play instruments and prepare our performances. Yesterday we (arts PE library) get am email that on Tuesday we need to bring two samples of our journal assignments for each grade level to a meeting with administration so they can give us feedback on our feedback to the children in their journals.
So my hunch is the principal needs to show someone above her (or in tandem with her, maybe a curriculum coach or something) that these magic journals are happening in all classes.
It’s not a big deal. I save everything the kids do and it can be considered a journal, but really the journals are not practical as a weekly thing in a 30 minute music class with 24 Kindergarteners.
There are aspects to public school that feel like a charade. And in some ways I think reformers are reacting against that with the ideas of charters, but really what it seems should be happening is that we free public schools up from the charade stuff.
My view is that “curriculum” folks are part of the problem. But principals like them because they view them as glorified test prep coaches and enforcers.
Some principals think CCSS keeps teachers from being mediocre. I think that shows a lack of trust in teachers on the part of a principal who thinks that.
And I’m not sure what I think of this journal thing. But I think it illustrates the exact opposite of what Duane was suggesting (and what I long to see more of).
Joanna:
Your comment like Duane’s are thought provoking. Have you raised the problematic notion of creating a journal for all subjects? If so, what was the response? How does your Principal articulate the rationale for requiring that which seems of marginal relevance to your subject? How do you plan to address the issue at the next meeting?
Bernie – you don’t usually get to comment on a principal’s edict. I don’t ever remember being asked for my opinion on a school wide policy. Only once did I confront his plans during a faculty meeting and he shut me down immediately. After that, if I wanted to comment, it was done privately, and to no avail. Only once did I lose my temper and start yelling at the principal. And I still lost, plus I had to apologize for being unprofessional. In the end, I tried to find ways around his decisions so I could follow my own path. I’m sure his life is much simpler now that I’ve retired.
Ellen:
Another interesting comment. Have you had a principal who has seriously asked for your input and the input of other teachers before implementing a policy that directly impacted what you did in the classroom?
A few times.
I was on a site based team where we discussed ways to help the school and I was actually given funds to purchase items in support of joint ideas discussed with the administration.
The same principal I mentioned did have a committee to discuss the format of the Gifted and Talented High School. I made several suggestions. My concept was dismissed (too out of the box), but the end result was still a good one. For a student to automatically be accepted into the HS, they had to have decent grades and have a three on the assessments (I’m sure that changed after the last round of tests in NYS), or they could take a creativity test (very different from an IQ test). There were several students who didn’t qualify that we lobbied to include. Some he admitted, others he didn’t. Although he wasn’t the best principal, he definitely wasn’t the worst. And his heart was in the right place concerning the kids. Assisting individual failing students was often the topic of discussion at subject area or grade level meetings.
We found ways to influence his decisions by using the people he listened to, to forward our agenda. I wasn’t afraid to go in his office. Other people were (he could be intimidating). For the most part, he gave me free reign in the LMC, but towards the end he started micromanaging (as concerned the HS library – although we were a 5 to 12 building). When I retired I missed the kids, but not our sparring matches.
Ellen:
Thanks for the details.
The interactions with your principal seem to be similar to those that occur in other professions and organizations. It would be interesting to hear about very supportive and effective principals.
I disagree changemaker. Both the Superintendent and the Principal set the tone. They both can do a lot of damage, they both can do a lot of good. It’s hard for a teacher to work in a hostile environment. They have to fight both the kids and their boss. A teacher needs to have a good support system backing them up so they can focus on their jobs and not the politics. It shouldn’t be a matter of “in spite of” but “with the help of” their administrators.
One of our administrators referred to transfer requests as the “flight if the lemmings”. That was said as an insult to the teachers. In actuality, if there was a massive exodus of teachers from the building, it was because of a bad principal, not a bad teacher. The same with superintendents – the mass retirements of department heads and other downtown leadership told me that the last superintendent was even worse than he appeared.
So, it does matter.
Readers need to know that Karl Rove elected GWB through smoke and mirrors, slight of hand and passing out the free snake-oil to anyone who would drink-up the “Texas Miracle.”
The whistleblower, Robert Kimball is a real hero from the Lone Star state for exposing the fraud that Rove used for GWB’s bogus NCLB platform.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-texas-miracle/
Billions to corporations = NCLB > high-stakes testing > Pearson > Paige > Spellings > Race to the Top > Duncan > high-stakes testing > Pearson > Common Core > inBloom = Déjà vu!
Thanks for the bit of history. Few know of Paige and the “Texas Miracle” and it’s ultimate effect on today’s policies.
(Rove’s a toady of the Bushies, god, I hope he hasn’t been paid off again by them to help Jebbie. Rove is one hell of a political operative whose place in hell can only be solidified these days.)