Get Schooled

By jim d

March 23, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry but I have serious problems with Sonny’s concept for improving schools by taking the best leaders and placing them in schools that are failing. First this assumes that it is purely a leadership problem. If in fact this is the problem why not just fire the incompetent administrators? We know from experience that is not going to happen, those replaced will be relocated to schools that are doing better.

This is just another Smoke and mirror illusion to attempt to improve an educational system that fails our poorest students. If our dear Gov. wants to have a positive impact he must address issues of poverty and resegregation of our schools. There is imperical evidence that these are two major contributing factors leading to poor performing schools.

Simply moving administrators around won’t even make a dent in the problem it’s merely treats the symptom rather than the cause. He needs to invest in creating better paying jobs for low-income parents if he really wants to see results.

By Lee

March 23, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Effective leadership is just one of the pieces of the puzzle. I do have two observations:

• A good leader (manager) cannot bring an organization up as much or as quickly as a bad manager can bring it down.

• It does not matter how effective you are as a manager if your core strategy is flawed.

By Ernest

March 23, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this

As I reviewed the list and noted the schools that I’m familiar with, I noticed that many had high levels of parental involvement. I don’t want to take anything away from the abilities of these principals however it is fair to say part of their success could be attributed to managing extremely enthusiastic parents.

Using a basketball analogy, some say they Phil Jackson has had success because he coached a team with tremendous talents (CHI - Michael Jordan, LA - Shaq & Kobe Bryant) and knew when to let the players ‘just play’. Is there anyone that thinks bringing Phil to the Atlanta Hawks will bring us a championship team?

By cobbparent

March 23, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

For Cobb anyway, the list of principals is a JOKE! Only one of the principals listed, Mr. Carter, formerly of Lassiter HS, belongs on that list. Student achievement at every school listed is high due primarily to demographics(very affluent), the parents (well educated and involved), and the students — absolutely NOT the principals.

By WFC

March 23, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

How many of these “star principals” could competently teach a core academic course? I didn’t think so.

By JustMe

March 23, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this

It is politics as usualy. An attempt by a politican to meddle in education when they know NOTHING about education.

Here is a clue…. Ask teachers what’s wrong with education! Teachers are in the ‘front line’ and see every day the issues and roadblocks to education.

If Sonny or Cathy or any politican gave a rat’s a$$ they would stop with their showmanship and ask teachers.

By twinangelsdiva

March 23, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Amen Just Me!!!!

By jim d

March 23, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

From a parents perspective.

“Enabling is a term used in 12 step recovery to describe the behavior of one, who rescue an alcoholic or drug addict from the consequences of their own self destructive behavior”.

If we were to apply this same definition to our public schools, we could then be said to be enabling our failing schools by our continued support of methodology that has failed to improve education. It could be argued that we enable our school systems by our continued bailing them out of the consequences of their own self-destructive, compulsive behavior.

A person, or in this case a system, who is acting out self destructively has no reason to change if they never suffer major consequences for their behavior. If they are rescued from consequences, they are enabled to continue practicing their addiction.

Rescuing someone, who is actively practicing addiction of some kind, is enabling. It is dysfunctional because it supports the person in continuing to practice their addiction. A person in recovery working on getting healthier may need some help from time to time - and that is great, that is being supportive in a positive manner. Helping someone to continue to self-destruct is not support, it is codependency - it is also not loving.

It appears to me that we have become so codependent upon our current educational system that we refuse to allow it to fail, there by enabling it to continue to fail.

Perhaps it time we showed a little tough love towards public education. Allowing it to fail might just bring improvement.

GO FOR IT SONNY!!

By WFC

March 23, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

A LITTLE OFF TOPIC: I’m watching the congressional hearing on C-SPAN 3 concerning NCLB as it applies to English Learners. It’s the Great Society all over again. A bunch of highly paid experts blowing smoke at a problem. Real teachers in real schools have enough to do without being held responsible for teaching English to non-English speakers. Where will they get all these “bi-lingual” teachers who are also competent in their subject matter? Good luck! This whole business is a scam. Dumbing down the curriculum will be the result, as usual. I’m sickened by these jargon ridden “experts.”

By Janine

March 23, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

It’s like I have said before…..If a Low achieving school [using NCLB term, but you know what I mean.] exchanges faculty and administration with a High Achieving school, at the end of the exchange year, there will be no change in achievement /scores. However, when we discuss this, some of my colleagues believe that the scores would go down, because the faculties are accustomed to providing instruction for their own type of student and it would take some time to adapt….if indeed they could.

By scott

March 23, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

This same reasoning is why many teachers stop pursuing National Certification. Perdue only wants to award teachers with national certification if they move to a low performing school. What about teachers that do not have a low performing school in their area? Do you want to commute over an hour to endure high stress for 9-10 hours a day? What about the school you have to leave, do those students deserve to have a highly qualified teacher leave?

On another subject, the article about APS having to pay for private tuition is going to open another can of worms for school funding. So much money and emphasis is going to special education; and we wonder why our students can not compete with the rest of the world anymore. We do not invest in our best and brightest and this will not change unless a LAWSUIT is won on behalf of gifted students. That will be the day.

By Ernest

March 23, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

Bridgett:

What criteria was used to determine if a principal went to a new school? I ask because I know of one of the others on the list that went to a low performing school. Maybe they didn’t accept the money with the move?

I’d also like to suggest you open up another blog topic today on the APS article, as Scott mentioned. While I understand the students position about not receiving proper services from being misdiagnosed, I wonder where does the ultimate responsibility for the diagnosis lie. Just thinking out loud….

By Lisa B.

March 23, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Principals alone cannot cause these drastic improvements. The principals must be free to create a team, enforce rules and discipline, etc. Of course, and affluent student population REALLY helps as well :-)

By JustMe

March 23, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Scott -

Here is the solution (needed to “work the NCLB and Sonny’s system)…

If you are National Board Certified and want your just compensation for it without moving to a “bad” school, all you have to do is ensure that your current school doesn’t make AYP! :-)

Work the system, baby!

By Reader

March 23, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

I once worked for one of the principals on the list. While it is true that the school was excellent before she came along, she worked very hard at improving it anyway. You do usually find excellent principals and excellent administrators at high-performing schools, along with very involved parents. It’s one of those “the chicken or the egg” issues. Involved parents with high-achieving students won’t tolerate a mediocre president. Even before the whole school council joke began, this was true. I’d hear stories from teachers at other schools about the asinine things their principals did, or hear how miserable the work environment was, and thank God I was under Mrs.__’s leadership.

The funny thing is, she retired the year before the list came out. I don’t think you could pay her enough now to go to any school in the state!!

By Janine

March 23, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

Bridget…when/if you get access to the GOV….ask him why he isn’t offering the same incentives to teachers who will move to low performing schools.

By Janine

March 23, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

I actually think, at least in Dekalb, they did offer a $1500 bonus to teachers who would move to a low performing school. Lots of difference in the money, isn’t there? And I know that at least one of those schools, four of those teachers who came have resigned in frustration.

By JustMe

March 23, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Janine,

In the governors mind, he is offering incentives to the “good” teachers to move to low performing schools. That is the compensation for National Board Certification.

Not that I agree with his policies…..

By Janine

March 23, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

JustMe… Key words: in the mind of the Gov. It is kind of muddled in there,isn’t it.??..and not just about education!

By V for Vendetta

March 23, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

Wow Sonny, you ARE just a clueless good ‘ole boy.

We are fortunate enough to have a great principal here at my school who has the unenviable task of trying to keep one of the “good schools” from quickly going down the tubes. I fear it may be a losing battle, but he is doing his best. That having been said, I don’t think a good principal is some kind of magic bullet. Again, Sonny is looking for the quick fix rather than addressing the underlying problems. Many “good” teachers would not want to put up with the crap people and students would give them in an under-performing school. They’ve worked hard to get where they are and they’re not going to just give up their gifted/AP students and head into the war zone.

Ultimately it is the POLITICS that control everything. From the assinine requirements of NCLB to the pathetic, spineless, PCness with which the schools themselves are run. The people who should have the most voice in educations decisions (the teachers) are largely ignored. Actually they are completely ignored. Speaking out or standing up for what you believe in means getting transfered or being creatively fired. Sad.

Other than consider a career in politics, there isn’t a whole lot to do. We must vote with our heads (not with our hearts or faiths) and hope that the next president, govenor, etc. listens and understands the problem. It might be a pipe dream, but without any kind of organized union, it’s all we got.

By Truth Filter

March 23, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Hate to be a voice of reason here…but the story is DEEPLY flawed.

The legislation was passed and signed into law in April according to the press release linked above. The list of principals didn’t come out until June (I’m assuming there was more to the criteria than just raw test scores).

So, how can you say the program was a failure if it didn’t have a legitimate shot at success given the timeline. I guess you could accuse the Governor and others about being too aggressive.

And as far as I can tell, the Governor wasn’t offering this up as some kind of cure-all for schools. He was simply acknolwedging that leadership is important and giving an incentive to put leaders in our most needy schools.

What, exactly, is wrong with that? It’s not like it’s a requirement.

By JustMe

March 23, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

Truth Filter,

It is flawed! Principals were recognized based on the success of their school. That in, itself is flawed because there are many great schools with horrible principals.

Another flaw is assumming that the Principal can turn around a “bad” school and not take the other variables into account. As others have posted, Sonny should have made a similar offer to excellent teachers if he gave a da^^, but he did not.

By jim d

March 23, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

just me,

well said

By Truth Filter

March 23, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

But teachers DO get that.

Isn’t that what the National Board Certification Process is? Also, wasn’t there something about Master Teachers?

I don’t think anyone was saying that a principal can turn around a school by himself or herself. They are saying that principals are important to the process of turning around a school.

And they are.

By Janine

March 23, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

Truth Filter., Re: “So, how can you say the program was a failure if it didn’t have a legitimate shot at success given the timeline”
Perhaps you are not aware of the fact in the Metro counties, reassignments of principals are often made 2-3 weeks before school starts…some are made in the middle of the year. And all of the metro counties have plenty of “low performing schools” available for the program. I think we can definitely say that there were numerous opportunities for principals to move if they wanted to. Just me is rightTHe program is flawed NOt the story about it.

By Janine

March 23, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

Please get real…..NO ONE has ever offered teachers anything CLOSE to that kind of money to do anything. If I remember correctly, there was a huge deal about whether the state would help pay for teachers to take the National Board Cert. exam.

By Truth_Filter

March 23, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

But Janine…this is a choice the PRINCIPAL makes, not the system. So, the question is whether June is too late for a principal to make a decision about his or her career.

I seem to recall that National Board Certified Teachers get a bump in pay that stays with them. I know some of that is changing.

Either way…just because the teachers haven’t been offered that doesn’t make the High Performing Principal program flawed. It’s just a piece of the puzzle.

My only point is the Principal program hasn’t been given enough time to succeed. Maybe it is a bad idea. But there hasn’t been enough time to determine that yet.

Personally, I think teacher raises should be based completely on merit (but on more than test scores). But that’s a personal opinion and a blog for another day.

By Janine

March 23, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this

Truth Filter I agree with you that ” teacher raises should be based completely on merit (but on more than test scores”. THe problem is, what criteria would be the basis? No one has ever been able to come up with a fair evaluation of just how effective a teacher is. I would guess that almost all teachers are effective for someone….and not for others…At one time I thought that teacher evaluations should be done by the students…but we all know why that wouldn’t work.

By lynn d

March 23, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

In DeKalb, the bonus for teachers willing to work at Sequoyah Middle and McNair Middle was $3,000 a year for up to 3 years — and multiple teachers have already resigned.

There were principals on that list that are not considered good principals by most teachers in their building or many parents — they just have the benefit of having no to little diversity and no to little poverty.

These principals realize that a lower performing school would be a whole different beast and aren’t willing to take that on.

By Janine

March 23, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this

THose principals who didn’t accept the gov’s offer are smarter than I have given them as group credit for. Lynn d is spot on when she says “These principals realize that a lower performing school would be a whole different beast and aren’t willing to take that on. We have blogged that “demographics, income, education of parents,” many times.