Archives for category: Administrators, superintendents

This superb article in the Texas Observer by Patrick Michels is one of the most astute and hopeful I have read in months.

It chronicles the idea of the school superintendent as super-hero: the man or woman who can reshape the schools and achieve astonishing goals solely by force of will and personality.

The story is about Mike Miles, the superintendent of Dallas, but it is really about the national scene, about the rise and fall of the myth of the Super-Superintendent, the super star who makes bold promises, sets lofty targets, disrupts the district, then moves on–either to more money or obscurity.

The working premise of the Hero Superintendent is that the system is broken and needs to be turned upside down, with  lots of firings and threats.

Michels writes:

The business world’s interest in remaking public education is nothing new—calling school leaders “superintendents” became popular a century ago, when factory efficiency experts took a first pass at redesigning public schools.

America is enjoying another such moment today. Popular business literature is suffused with the idea that strong leadership has the power to improve even the most massive bureaucracy, and the education world has fallen in line. The George W. Bush Institute, the think tank tied to the presidential library at Southern Methodist University, is home to an “Alliance to Reform Education Leadership.” The Broad Superintendents Academy in Los Angeles is one of the most polarizing institutions of the current school-reform movement, grooming “exceptional leaders and managers to help transform America’s education systems, raise student achievement and create a brighter future,” according to its website.

“I think there’s been something of an infatuation with business management in education,” says Young, the University of Virginia scholar. “Schools are not businesses. We don’t necessarily have the same moral obligations to the community and to kids that you have to stakeholders that are investing their money.”

“The reason it works in business is you do have a bottom line,” Brewer says. “In order to do that in education, they had to find one indicator of success. That’s not necessarily compatible with the complexity of education.”

New superintendents who focused on “quick wins” in the “first 90 days”—that’s all straight out of popular business literature. So is the focus on transformational change, the faith that we’re capable of rapid improvement in society if only we’ll shake off the old ways and dismantle the status quo. No business concept has been more contentious in schools than the tech-inspired enthusiasm for “disruption.”

As it happens, after a year of disruptions, firings, and departures, Miles was in deep trouble with his board. He barely survived, on a 5-3 vote.

The article ends with the prediction that the age of the Hero Superintendent is drawing to a close.

Michels writes:

You can’t improve a school district if you only last a couple of years. School chiefs who ride into town with a hero complex, alienate everybody and get dragged out like martyrs don’t get to build a legacy.

Joe Smith of TexasISD.com believes the hero trend is falling out of favor. “We’ve gotten to the peak of that movement, and I think we’ll see the pendulum come back,” Smith says. “If you’re looking at redefining your schools in your community, I would think that someone who knows the community would have a jump on anybody else.”

 

The most popular guessing game in New York City these days is Who Will The New Mayor Choose as Chancellor?

Many names have been floated, including some who currently work in the Bloomberg DOE. Seems unlikely.

Some have suggested J.C. Brizard, who was disliked by teachers in Rochester and booted out by Rahm Emanuel in Chicago. Unlikely.

Another name floated is former Baltimore superintendent Andres Alonso. Here the New York City Parent blog reviews the good and the bad about his record. He seems too close to the Klein ideology to survive scrutiny.

The guessing game goes on.

More than 20 school districts in the Lower Hudson Valley region have announced that they are dropping out of New York state’s Race to the Top, due to concerns about student privacy.

“Officials say there is no way to know how the data, which identifies students and includes disciplinary and health records, will be used in the future. They say they are concerned about colleges and employers seeking childhood records, the involvement of private interests like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp in inBloom, and a state document that outlined plans for various agencies to share information for an individual’s “lifetime.”

“This is a watershed moment,” Pleasantville Superintendent Mary Fox-Alter said. “We are seeing distrust breed among parents.”

The state Education Department has started sending general information to inBloom and is scheduled to begin uploading student information this winter.

More than 20 districts in the Lower Hudson Valley have pulled out of New York’s participation in the federal Race to the Top initiative, hoping that doing so will allow them to withhold certain data. Since the state has said that this strategy will not work, districts are now writing to inBloom directly and requesting that their student records be deleted.

The superintendents drafted a model letter to inBloom asking to withdraw their student data. Their spokesman said that if inBloom refused, they would consider other strategies.

David Gamberg, the enlightened and thoughtful superintendent of the Southold school district in Long Island, New York, wrote a letter to the president of inBloom and asked that the corporation remove any data pertaining to the students of his district.

For his willingness to say “no, not with our students,” David Gamberg is hereby added to the honor roll as a champion of American education. He has done the honorable thing. He has defended his students against commercial exploitation and defended their right to privacy and their right to be left alone by a government and a private sector that believes that privacy is dead. Not in Southold!

New York is one of the few states in the nation that has agreed to hand over all personal, confidential student information to inBloom.

inBloom is the corporation funded by the Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation ($100 million from Gates) to collect personal, identifiable student data. The software was created by Wireless Generation, part of Joel Klein’s Amplify, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. The data will be stored on a “cloud” managed by amazon.com.

Gamberg does not want the personal data of the students in his district on that cloud. Good for him!

What’s is in the data set? 400 data points about every student. Personal, confidential, identifiable.

How is this legally possible? In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education changed the regulations for the federal privacy act, known as FERPA. As a result, this data may now be released to third parties without parental consent.

Why was all that data collected? In some cases it was necessary for the schools and the districts, but the sudden creation of huge data warehouses was mandated for those states that received funds from Race to the Top or waivers from NCLB.

In other words, friends, the Gates Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education worked together to assure that every piece of data about the children of America would be assembled in one place. inBloom makes no guarantees that the data cloud cannot be hacked.

Please read Superintendent Gamberg’s letter to the president of inBlooom, Mr. Iwan Streichenberger. It is attached to the link above. Ever superintendent and school board should use this letter as a model to protect the privacy of their students and families.

David Gamberg, the enlightened and thoughtful superintendent of the Southold school district in Long Island, New York, wrote a letter to the president of inBloom and asked that the corporation remove any data pertaining to the students of his district.

For his willingness to say “no, not with our students,” David Gamberg is hereby added to the honor roll as a champion of American education. He has done the honorable thing. He has defended his students against commercial exploitation and defended their right to privacy and their right to be left alone by a government and a private sector that believes that privacy is dead. Not in Southold!

New York is one of the few states in the nation that has agreed to hand over all personal, confidential student information to inBloom.

inBloom is the corporation funded by the Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation ($100 million from Gates) to collect personal, identifiable student data. The software was created by Wireless Generation, part of Joel Klein’s Amplify, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. The data will be stored on a “cloud” managed by amazon.com.

Gamberg does not want the personal data of the students in his district on that cloud. Good for him!

What’s is in the data set? 400 data points about every student. Personal, confidential, identifiable.

How is this legally possible? In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education changed the regulations for the federal privacy act, known as FERPA. As a result, this data may now be released to third parties without parental consent.

Why was all that data collected? In some cases it was necessary for the schools and the districts, but the sudden creation of huge data warehouses was mandated for those states that received funds from Race to the Top or waivers from NCLB.

In other words, friends, the Gates Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education worked together to assure that every piece of data about the children of America would be assembled in one place. inBloom makes no guarantees that the data cloud cannot be hacked.

Please read Superintendent Gamberg’s letter to the president of inBlooom, Mr. Iwan Streichenberger. It is attached to the link above. Ever superintendent and school board should use this letter as a model to protect the privacy of their students and families.

Jersey Jazzman describes the new era of creative disruption in Montclair, New Jersey, under its Broad-trained superintendent.

Montclair was, until now, one of the best districts in a high performing state.

Expect the crisis narrative to begin any day now as a prelude to charters and school closings. Unless, that is, the parents rebel. Suburban parents don’t like to be shoved around, and don’t like experiments on their children.

As parent activist Karen Wolfe explains here, Los Angeles is in the district of a power struggle over control of its public schools.

Wolfe says the voters elected school board members to reflect the will of the people.

Superintendent John Deasy has threatened to resign as his way of pressuring the elected board to do what he wants and to get the business community to demand that the board let Deasy take charge. Even the new mayor has told the board to leave Deasy alone and stay out of his way.

This is an extraordinary situation. The power elite of Los Angeles wants the elected board to hand control over to Deasy. You can be sure that in every one of their corporations, the CEO serves at the pleasure of the board, not the other way around.

What is the purpose of having a board election if real power is vested in the superintendent, not the board?

John Deasy was hired to carry out the will of the elected board, not to cow it into submission.

John Deasy, superintendent of schools in Los Angeles, announced he was resigning as of February.

Melissa Heckler, a certified teacher and librarian, wrote the following letter to the New York State Board of Regents. She feels sorry for Dr. King. She wonders why the Regents selected as state commissioner someone with so little experience as a teacher or administrator. She doesn’t blame him for his present predicament. She blames the Regents, who selected someone so young and so inexperienced, so lacking in the wisdom that comes with maturity. After Dr. King made a hash of his first parent forum in Poughkeepsie, first lecturing parents for over an hour, then interrupting parents who tried to express their views, the meeting descended into chaos, and King canceled the other four events he had announced. The Regents determined that they had to back their Commissioner, no matter how inept and arrogant he is, so they have now announced that there will be 16 such parent meetings across the state, but Dr. King will be accompanied by one or more Regents at each meeting. Maybe they will bring a stopwatch to cut him off when he goes into lecture mode. Oddly enough, the Regents did not include New York City, where 1/3 of the state’s students are enrolled, in their list of parent meetings.

To: The Board of Regents

From: A N.Y. State certified School Librarian and N.Y. State certified K-6 state certified Teacher
Re: The Commissioner of Education
October 20, 2013
To my way of thinking you have done a terrible disservice to Dr. John King by putting him in a leadership position for which he is not yet qualified. I did not expect to feel compassion for this young man with whom so many, including me, disagree, knowing that his policies harm children and education. With his lack of experience, he is not even qualified to be a principal or superintendent in any New York public school. Yet, you appointed him to lead those of us who arehighly qualified for the positions we hold. John King might have had, and might yet have, a brilliant career in education, but he is not yet a veteran, highly qualified educator. How you could do this to such a capable young person is beyond imagining. He may speak eloquently, even brilliantly, in a lecture, but he clearly has not developed the communication skills to respond to teachers, administrators, or parents when they express deep concerns about his policies. What he lacks, in a word, is wisdom.
I struggle to understand how you appointed, and continue to support, as the Commissioner of Education a man who has so little teaching experience and none in the public schools. He, as far as I know, never achieved tenure in the public school sector as a teacher or administrator. How could Dr. King be remotely qualified to guide and lead educators without the required experience? He may be extremely bright, and put on a fast track to become an administrator, but that does not mean he has achieved the experience and wisdom to guide teachers and communicate effectively with those who challenge his policies. As a senior teacher, I am appalled by his recent behavior in Poughkeepsie. It is embarrassing to our profession to have someone at the helm of education react so defensively and dismissively to parents who were clearly anguished by what they witnessed happening to their formerly school loving children. I hold each of you responsible for appointing a man whose policies have harmed children, their families, and teachers. Why compassion for him? He clearly didn’t know how to handle this challenging situation because he was not adequately prepared and was put by each one in an untenable position.
The appointment of such a singularly unqualified individual as New York’s educational leader begs the question: How much do you understand of the long, hard path to becoming a highly qualified teacher or a wise administrator? In my forty years plus in education, as a teacher, librarian, and parent, I have witnessed all kinds of teachers. The singular qualities that define all great teachers: They are life long learners and passionate in discovering the unique methods for reaching and teaching every child. The best senior teachers often look back and reflect on what they did not know as young teachers. Although beginning teachers may be outstanding, it takes years to become a seasoned, veteran teacher— able to single out the exact learning/teaching approaches that will best inspire a love of learning and activate each student’s potential. No single curriculum fits every student’s needs; it takes constant professional development and education (not training) to hone these skills. As any beginning professional— doctors, lawyers, accountants and a host of others— needs years to develop wide ranging professional intelligence, so, too, does the teaching profession require years to develop an ability to reach and support all kinds of minds and communicate compassionately and knowledgeably with the families we serve.
Would you give your children medicine for which there is no research? That is what you are doing with the forced implementation of the Common Core State Standards. They were not developed with the expertise of educators or child development professionals. Are there good, even excellent, points in these standards? Yes. The way to develop a sound foundation for what is good in them, is to include teachers, administrators, and child development experts (pediatricians, psychologists, psychiatrists) in their development. What has been pointed out repeatedly, and pointedly ignored, is that the U.S. does not have an achievement gap, it has POVERTY gap. With one broad brush you have painted all schools as failing schools and implemented programs for which there is NO research. You have actually lowered education standard and achievement in many schools once filled with excellent creative teaching; worse, you are destroying schools in impoverished areas that could actually use some of the billions spent on the CCSS, to implement researched programs and hire qualified teachers.
I remain hopeful you will listen to the public outcry from teachers, administrators, parents, and students and rescind your policies and begin the long hard road to addressing the real problems facing education: poverty, class size, the financial crisis in New York education caused by the 2% tax cap and unfunded, unresearched mandates. If you believe in every student’s right to a high quality educational experience that will address unique learning needs, then your actions must prove it. It you want to preserve the career of this young man, Dr. John King, then remove him and let him get the experience and wisdom that you require of all New York State educators. You have done him a disservice, harmed children, and undermined the teaching profession by placing him in this position.
Sincerely,
Melissa A. Heckler, MS ECE, MLS
Cross River, New York

Carole Marshall is a retired teacher in Rhode Island who explains how State Commissioner Deborah Gist’s insistence on standardized testing has discouraged educators and students across the state. The most pernicious effect of this policy, Marshall shows, has hurt poor and minority youngsters the most.

In an article in the Providence Journal, Marshall writes:

The Oct. 15 Commentary piece (“R.I.’s diploma system brings out the best”) by Deborah Gist, Rhode Island’s commissioner of elementary and secondary education, is yet another demonstration of her ability to say what she wants to be true, as if the saying of it makes it true.

Among the many half-truths and untruths in her screed is the insinuation that students who score badly on the New England Common Assessment Program tests, i.e. urban students, have been subject to “years of poor, inadequate education,” while students who do well have teachers who, by contrast, “provide great instruction that engages students on many levels and teaches key academic skills.”

This malicious slur on urban teachers is the ultimate in hubris from a young woman who spent a handful of years teaching in an elementary school and since then has glided up the professional ladder on the shoulders of right-wing politicians and millionaires like Jeb Bush and Eli Broad. If there are any urban teachers who didn’t know what the commissioner thought of them before, they know now.

I left urban teaching before I had planned to for one reason only: I could not be a participant in what top-down, standardized testing does to destroy education in urban schools and, by extension, the lives of students who are already hanging on by a slender thread to the dream of a successful middle-class life.

Before the systematic destruction began, I would have held my school, Hope, up against any other school in the state in terms of who was providing great instruction. Hope’s faculty included a significant number of advanced degrees, Ivy League graduates, and national-board-certified teachers. With the support of then-Commissioner Peter McWalters, we taught literacy across the curriculum, shared rubrics for scoring work, and created a system for student portfolios. We were doing the slow, careful job of building a climate characterized by rigorous, accountable learning.

Then high-stakes testing arrived on the scene and to nobody’s surprise, urban schools’ scores were worse than the scores of suburban schools; the same pattern repeats itself year after year in every corner of this country.

Why? There are a host of extremely well-documented reasons for this. To name just a few: Urban schools have a hugely disproportionate number of students who are new to the language; a hugely disproportionate number of students with learning disabilities; and large numbers of students with serious behavioral problems, including those sent from their suburban districts to group homes in the cities.

That is in addition to the reality that students from impoverished environments are often handicapped by circumstances beyond their control, such as vocabulary deficits, health problems, unstable homes, hunger, and the list goes on. We can all wish these conditions didn’t exist, but we can’t, as Commissioner Gist likes to do, simply ignore them away. Throwing tests at urban students does nothing to solve their problems. The disparities will only grow wider as mandatory test preparation steals more and more time from real education in urban schools.

On the subject of test prep and teaching to the test, Commissioner Gist is correct about one thing: “schools with students who perform well on state assessments do not focus on test preparation.” Pretty tautologically obvious in my opinion; the schools with students who perform well have no reason to focus on test preparation.

On the other hand, in the schools that are being threatened with closure solely on the basis of test scores, you can be sure administrators are not just sitting around, waiting to lose their jobs. The specter of low scores powerfully encourages test preparation and teaching to the test.

This year, the turn-around company hired for $5 million to raise scores in Providence schools hired tutors who spent every school day during the month of September prepping 11th graders for the NECAP assessments.

The students were missing their regular classes every day, even in subjects like physics and foreign languages, so that the schools could show improvement. Suburban parents would never have allowed this; urban parents were not informed.

Students are disingenuously told that this is all happening for their own good. Any reader of this newspaper who truly believes that the testing juggernaut is about benefiting the students is sorely uninformed.

The textbook publishers who sell the test and test-prep materials will make their billions, the so-called turn-around companies will make their millions, and carpetbaggers like Ms. Gist will continue blithely along their career paths, leaving behind wrecked schools and crushed dreams in the cities.

Carole Marshall taught at Hope High School for 18 years, retiring in 2012. Before that she was a business correspondent for the Observer of London and taught journalism at Fairleigh Dickinson University and the University of Rhode Island.