School "reformers" have it wrong

The school reform dialogue is frequently centered upon the executive role of Principals. Advocates such as Michelle Rhee assert that Principals and other leaders should be able to select teachers, dismiss teachers, and design instruction through their control of teachers. The Broad Foundation has particularly advanced this viewpoint through their training of business executives as district superintendents.  These self described “reformers” have it wrong.  Their view is fundamentally in error. That may be one of the big reasons it is not working. 

The argument for this extraordinary role for principle leadership comes from two sources, ideological assertions that hide a particular view of learning and a model of the role of  principals based upon models of directions and management  from private industry.  This model is inappropriate for public schools and professional teachers.  The “reformers” have not learned the basic  role and functions of democracy in public education.

In  private industry and commerce a leader is in charge  because the goal of the

Institution is to make profit.   The leader is empowered to make decisions to maximize profit. this is a part of the complete domination of work life in the private sector by authoritarian structures.  Private industry usually  is not a democratic environment.  Workers do not have the right  to decide how to do their work.  They are to follow orders or leave.

School alternatives to suspension.

New state law as of Jan.1, schools must seek alternatives to suspension.  One alternative is called Restorative Justice.
Teachers, administrators, FYI

What Does AB 1729 Do And How Does It Help Students?

1.     Sets out the legislature’s intent that alternatives to suspension and expulsion should be used and school exclusion should be avoided and recognizes that vulnerable student groups are receiving the brunt of all discipline removals in California!  This is important because it tells school districts who are using harsh and punitive out-of-school discipline and giving more punishments to students of color and others that state law does not support this and that they need to change their practices.  Here are a few things that the legislature said:

—  “The overuse of school suspension and expulsion undermines the public policy of this state and does not result in safer school environments or improved pupil behavior.”

—  “School suspension and expulsion are disproportionately imposed on pupils of color, pupils with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pupils, and other vulnerable pupil populations.”

—  “Research has found that nonpunitive classroom discipline . . . are more effective and efficient than suspension and expulsion for addressing the majority of pupil misconduct.”

—  “The public policy of this state is to provide effective interventions for pupils . . .  avoid exclusion from school.”

2.     Requires other means of correction be used and FAIL prior to “in-school suspension” in addition to “out-of-school suspension”.  This is important because we want to be sure that schools are working to teach students how to correct their behavior and re-integrate into the school community before they lose valuable instruction time.

Unexamined assumptions in Getting Down to Facts

The educational pundits who seldom spend time in a classroom ( like the Bee’s Daniel Weintraub) have quickly focused in on the recommendation from Getting Down to Facts, to give Principals the power to dismiss teachers who they regard as failing.
A problem with this recommendation is that it carries a number of unstated, and unwarranted, assumptions.
The recommendation assumes that principals are better prepared and more professional than teachers and that they have the interests of students are their first priority. I know of no research evidence to support these assumptions.
In over 34 years of working in schools and working with principals all that I can assume from the data is that principals want a different job. In teacher preparation I frequently encounter people who have not even taught yet, but they plan to become principals. They want the shortest route to the top. They do not want a job working with children and youth. They want a job that is primarily management of resources. And, where they can manage teachers. And where they can get paid much more. During their first years of training most principals spend far more time expelling students and punishing students than time spent educating students.
If any readers have evidence that principals have more professionalism and/or more concern for children than teachers, please let me know. My first hand experience contradicts this assumption.
The argument that to promote quality education principals need to be able to dismiss a few incompetent teachers. Well perhaps.
Again from decades of working in schools and participating in teacher and administrator preparation I then offer a parallel argument. I could accept the process of principals having the power to dismiss a few less than competent teachers – if- and only if- teachers had the power to dismiss incompetent principals and superintendents. There is no evidence that the percentage of incompetent teachers is higher or lower than the percentage of incompetent principals- and I suggest superintendents.
Also, as suggested by author Kathy Emory in an excellent post on edjustice.blogspot.com, we should have a process for measuring the quality of researchers who reside in universities and who write reports – Like Getting Down to Facts.

Duane Campbell