Get Schooled

By Jeff

August 3, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

I’ll give anybody in power 10 yrs. Then I work to have them removed. (And I’ll do so sooner if I think they are beyond salvaging. I DO try to be an optimist about people though.)

Wilbanks and Hall both appear to be consumate politicians but HORRIBLE from an education stand point - which probably means their jobs are safe as long as they want them.

By Lee

August 3, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

School systems do not suffer when there is a revolving door in the superintendents office. School systems suffer when they put incompetent people in leadership positions, and then do it again, and again, and again…….

If the system is properly managed, losing the superintendent is no big deal. You should have a succession plan and be grooming one of the assistant superintendents to step into the job. Look at any successful corporation, that’s what they do.

But…

What usually happens when you have a lousy superintendent is that they fill the central office with their cronies and brown noser’s. When the super leaves (or gets fired), there is no quality replacement available to step in and take over. This forces the Board to go outside the system to recruit a new super, which is a crap shoot. You may get a good one, you may get another bad one. Only time will tell.

By thomas

August 3, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

The problem is that there is too much transiency in education. Not only do superintendents move a lot, but principals and other central office personnel as well. In the county I work, principals are switched around A LOT. The average principal/AP stays at a school 3-5 years (if that long) and they’re gone. And we know how much teachers move (unless, of course, they are are at “good” school).

By jimd

August 3, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

Just my humble opinon but Gwinnett could benefit from new blood. Alvin not only enjoys one of the longest tenures in the state but in the nation as well since the average tenure for a super is somewhat less than half of what Alvin has.

Source; CUBE survey http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/9600/9557.pdf

Is anyone else familar with what the US Coast Guard does with people every couple of years to avoid an abuse of power? Perhaps we should consider the same thing (moving them) Personally I’d rather we went back to electing them every 4 years. That way if we were pleased we’d keep them otherwise we could un-elect them.

By Ernest

August 3, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

JimD, you said, Personally I’d rather we went back to electing them every 4 years
If we did that, might the position become more politicized? I think it might also eliminate the possibility of bringing in someone from outside that might have different experiences and ideas. Would a qualified ‘outsider’ run for election in a place where they are not known?

Gwinnett and Atlanta’s supers are rare exceptions in today’s education landscape. Stakeholders ‘hire’ the board members that ‘hire’ the super. If stakeholders are dissatisfied with their super and nothing is done about it, they should fire the board members.

By Lisa B.

August 3, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

I’ve seen Lee’s scenario over and over. Another problem with contant turnover is that every new superintendent picks yet another “cure dejour” to be painstakingly implemented by schools. When that superintendent leaves, the replacement brings in a new “cure.”

By WhatWillBridgetDo?

August 3, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Maybe Beverly Hall has lasted eight years because when Bridget is presented DOCUMENTED evidence of APS breaking the law, Bridget refuses to do a story on it.

By Tony

August 3, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

The average length of duty for a superintendent in a school system in Georgia is 2.5 years (or less). This is bad for schools because of the drastic changes in goals and strategies implemented by the new guys coming in.

The superintendency is not shielded from politics through the appointment system, either. The whims of board members change with election cycles. Most boards have elections every two years for about 1/2 of the members. This coincides with the length of tenure for superintendents.

Change is usually one of the platforms of school board elections - or it would be better said “resistance to change.”

A succession plan within school systems is practically unheard of because of the election whims of the public. It is good for systems to develop skilled leaders who understand the needs of the community and who work diligently to improve the quality of education provided by the schools. Unfortunately, a newly elected board of education can undo these plans with a single vote.

It is in this context that I sometimes give in to the thought that privatization of schools would better serve the public. Mostly, though, I stick to my belief that decisions about local schools are best made at the local level. If communities desire to change direction of schools through altering the composition of a board of education, that should be their right.

By luvs2teach

August 3, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Lee - you hit the nail on the head - the nepotism, glad-handing, and brown-nosing are a huge problem. And we don’t have enough grooming, mentoring, whatever you want to call it - instead we have people biding their time so they can get in and run things their way.

jimd - my only problem with electing them is that then they spend more time running for reelction than running the schools - maybe a 6 year one term limit?

Question to all: what’s better, a superintendent with an education background, military background (Cobb’s Joe Redden comes to mind) or a business background? What education should they have (an online doctorate in Ed Theory, for example - or an MBA)?

What do you think?

By Jeff

August 3, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

L2T:

Give me a combat-hardened Marine Officer as a Superintendent. More than likely, I’d follow him to the gates of Hades with a squirt gun.

Education-based supers have their heads too deep in the BS to be effective.

Business-based supers have their heads to deep in the business-type BS (Six Sigma, etc) to be effective.

A combat hardened Marine Officer though… they’re going to be ready and able to do whatever it takes to get results. And they AINT gonna take no gruff - from ANYBODY.

By jimd

August 3, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

luv,

just my opinon — but they shouldn’t be a shop teacher from Tucker (if ya know what I mean)

By Lee

August 3, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

Luvs, good question.

I’m of the opinion that the best managers should have spent some time down in “the trenches.” You’ve got to have that core knowledge as a basis to make your decisions.

My company, like many others, often puts people on the unofficial “fast track.” They move them from position to position, never leaving them for more than a couple of years. One day, they announce that they are a VP and cite their “vast experience.” I’ve have many experiences with several of these fast trackers and although they are usually very bright (and very glib), they sometimes don’t have the requisite background to make sound decisions.

I do think that school systems should have someone with a business background to run the operational side of things. You know, the procurement, the maintenance, the accounting, etc.

As far as former military people, I’ve seen mixed results. If they can get out of the strictly authoritative leadership mode, they often do well. If not, they stay frustrated because not everyone jumps when they say so. Of course, schools are government bureaucracies, which are inherently more authoritative than business.

I also do not agree that local superintendents should be elected.

By jimd

August 3, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

Tony,

I’m afraid you may have bought into a bit of media hype on the 2.5 year thing.

Here, in part, is a portion of the CUBE report I provided a link to earlier, which contradicts what the media has presented over the years.

In this latest study, 16 CUBE districts reported that the most recent superintendent to complete his or her tenure served seven years or longer. Seven of the 50 largest urban districts reported the same.

The 50 school districts were also asked about the length of service of the predecessor to their “immediate past” superintendent. For these “once removed” superintendents, the average tenure was slightly longer: 5.2 years for the largest 50 cities, compared to 4.6 years for the most recently departed superintendent.

Among the 77 CUBE districts, the contrast was somewhat greater, with once-removed superintendents having served 6.4 years as opposed to the average tenure of five years for the most recently departed superintendent.

It should be noted that the discrepancy between immediate past and once-removed superintendents is based on the mean service. When data on median service is compared, the difference in service between the immediate past and once-removed past is reduced to 0.2 years for the largest city superintendents and 0.8 years for CUBE district superintendents.

The survey also found that eight CUBE districts reported having more than five superintendents during the 15-year period between 1985 and 2000. In contrast, 28 CUBE districts reported that every superintendent whose tenure ended in the 15-year period served at least five years, and 20 reported having at least one current or past superintendent serve for 10 years or more.

By jimd

August 3, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

Lee,

Perhaps you’re right, but then I consider the supers job a political job. One where an appointed butt head actually has control of a very large budgetfunded by tax dollars, with little or no accountability to taxpayers. In Gwinnett alone it is over a Billon dollars a year.

I personally feel it is time to real these folks in, bringing them back to reality and forcing more prudent planning and accounting of tax dollars.

By jimd

August 3, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Lee,

The whole poor planning thing is one that really winds me up. I very first time I stood and addressed the Gwinnett BOE I accused them and Alvin of “Poor Planning” and use of taxpayer funds. I must have really struck a cord with them because I still see them defending themselves of that statement made nearly 10 years ago.

I’ve come to realize though that it isn’t that it is poor planning but more a lack of accountability.

By JustMe

August 3, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this

The problem is that what people want (school boards) are not leaders, but followers. They want people that will do their bidding and keep a low profile and stay under the radar. This is true for superintendents all of the way down to the individual school administration.

Anyone that actually uses their brain to express an opinion that is opposite will be shot on site.

By Tony

August 3, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this

The CUBE report is base on urban districts. In Georgia there are many more rural districts. I know of one district that has had three superintendents within one year - not counting interims!

While this may be an extreme example, I live in a district that has had six superintendents in 18 years not counting interims. We finally have one with good sense and the ability to work with a very political board.

The 2.5 year average within Georgia is not just media hype.

L2T - The best candidate for a superintendent would have a track record of excellent leadership not just a pedigree. Jeff can have his military commando leader but I want one who understands what needs to happen in the classroom and puts the resources in place to make that happen. I do not want someone who wants to see checklists, 5 second visits in classes, looking for EQs on the board, and other baloney like this. Real teaching and learning takes much more than writing a standard on the board that the principal can check off on a chart. Jeff is right about the business manager type.

By concerned

August 6, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

I have seen many misunderstandings in this blog. Teachers are paid to work 190 days. The payroll departments then “keep” 1/12th of our salary to “pay” our summer checks. There are NO paid vacations. We do get sick leave and 3 days personnal leave in case a parent or spouse dies. We contribute 2% of our pay for retirement and do not pay into social security. We get no matching funds for 401ks like other “professionals” and no perks at all. Yes, we love teching, know the benefits when we go into it, and understand in Ga there is no collective barginning with public employees. But everyone not in the teaching profession should understand the problesm and lack of respect. In Clayton County 90% of the teachers have less than 5 years experence. Many systems are the same as all of us 50 or more 30 years or more veterans are leaving.

By WFC

August 6, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Some good news about supers! They have almost NO influence over the day-to-day learning going on in the classrooms. Good teachers continue to do good work regardless of who the super is. This goes for the associate and assistant supers as well. Don’t believe me? Just look at the career paths of most “higher-ups.” Very little experience or interest in the “nuts and bolts” of learning. For example, I worked for four years as an admministrator under Robert E. Burke when he was principal of Chattahoochee High School. Whenever any of our administrative team would bring up anything related to curriculum or instruction, Dr.. Burke’s eyes would glaze over and he would move discussion to something else as quickly as possible. His job now? Associate Super for Curriculun and Instruction for Fulton Co. Schools! He would be good as an Assoc. Super for business. Luckily, he won’t do much damage in his current post because of sheer disinterest.

By Education Ed

August 13, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this

Most appointed supes are in it for the money. They parrott the line about being so committed to the children — until another offer with more money comes along. Hall and Wilbanks are two glaring examples. They treat their teachers like dogs. That’s why I am a member of MACE. MACE is not afraid of these jerks.