School Leader

See my op-ed on Woodford County and our collective testing obsession in today's Herald-Leader

I recently blogged about Woodford County High's embarassment a few weeks back when school leaders sent a letter home to parents announcing an assembly to discuss the academic performance of African-American students.  A version of that post appears in today's Lexington Herald-Leader, which you can read here.

My key point is that the general public should not assume administrators at Woodford County were up to no good.  In fact, they were probably doing what schools everywhere do these days: trying to close achievement gaps.  But they did it in an awkward and inappropriate way, and the whole thing reveals a collective educational culture that is far more focused on improving test scores than on transforming classroom-level instruction.

 

Our fetish for guns -- and gun control -- will not make schools safer

I have hesitated to comment professionally on the recent school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.  To say anything whatsoever seems to diminish the enormous evil of the thing, the breathtaking heroism and sacrifice of the teachers who tried to save their students, the unfathomable grief of the parents, and the incalcuable, senseless loss of innocent lives.

We should mourn the dead, pray for the living, and ponder the mystery and meaning of it all, mostly in the silence of our hearts. (I wrote about the philosophical and theological response to the tragedy on my personal blog previously, which says more than is probably necessary or prudent).

What we should not do is try to cook up policy proposals that will vainly attempt to solve the problem of senseless tragedies like the Newtown Massacre or pridefully purport to prevent them from happening in the future.  But sadly this is exactly how myriad pundits, politicians, and countless ordinary people have responded. 

The suggested fixes for school violence run the predictable gamut from banning assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, and guns in general to various strategies like that proposed by the National Rifle Association to arm principals and teachers so they may respond to school shooters by returning fire.  Oh, and we should also "have a conversation" about violent video games and mental health.

If this is the way people grieve, so be it.  But there is a profound lack of awareness on the part of most people offering such suggestions that their proposals are merely clumsily-channeled attempts to make sense of a senseless event, and that their ideas will not ultimately solve the "problem" of school violence, but will most likely further complicate the lives of educators who want nothing more than to get on with the business of teaching children.

So because this is suddenly an education policy issue, and one with lots of implications for school leadership, and because that's what I do, I feel compelled to respond with some thoughts of my own.

Our national attachment for technical "fixes" to intractable social problems reflects our uniquely American blend of Pragmatism, Progressivism, and a healthy dose of what Hofstadter called "anti-intellectualism."  But it also leads to a kind of peculiar fetishism that defies reason and leads to bad policy.

In anthropological terms, "fetishism" is the cultural belief that certain objects have supernatural powers.  In this country, many people have a fetish regarding guns, as if the mere possession of a weapon makes them more independent and safe.  This magical notion of what guns can do is at the heart of the suggestions that if more teachers were carrying concealed weapons, tragedies like the Newtown shooting would be less likely, either because would-be gunmen will be deterred, or because the armed educators could use their weapons to fight back against a school shooter.

I actually have a lot of instinctive sympathy for this point of view.   I am a gun owner, a member of the NRA, and a defender of the Second Amendment.  Every time I hear about a mass public shooting, whether in schools or elsewhere, my immediate reaction is to wonder how things might have unfolded if just one well-trained person had a concealed weapon.  If nothing else, there might have been a chance to save a few lives.  I was still working as a practicing school administrator at the time of the Virginia Tech shooting, and after hearing how grown adults cowered in fear, waiting for the shooter to kill them, I made up my mind that should I ever be in such a situation with high school or university students, I would rally them to fight back.  Again, such a decision might not save your own life, but it gives a chance to someone else.

So, I have no problem with the idea that trained teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons in schools.  But as a policy proposal designed to make our schools substantively safer, this idea seems profoundly shallow and foolish.  Schools are already far too much like prisons in my opinion; deliberately and formally arming teachers, making students pass through metal detectors, or pursuing other strategies that further militarize the environment of schools makes students fearful and undermines the warm, friendly learning environment conducive to running an effective school.  And ultimately, such measures will not deter a madman bent on working mayhem in a school environment.  Perhaps the school shooter of the future simply brings more firepower to meet the resistance he might face from armed teachers.  He is, after all, on a suicide mission.

This is the same argument, of course, that Second Amendment advocates use against gun control.  No amount of legislation can deter a madman who genuinely wants to do harm to children.  And yet, the media hysteria in response to Newtown resounds with a common theme: we must do something about guns, even if it doesn't work.  We owe it to the children.

Research data on the effects of gun control laws, including efforts to make gun laws both more restrictive and more liberal, is decidely mixed.  Whether assault rifles are banned (a move that essentially outlaws weapons for the way they look), or other such measures succeed in being passed, it will be because we feel compelled to act, even if such actions don't ultimately make our schools safer.  These efforts are entirely symbolic.  They make us feel better about ourselves, even if they have no real impact.  We can see the same kind of reaction when old women are subjected to aggressive body scans at the airport.  It doesn't prevent terrorism, but it makes us feel like we're doing something.

The truth is, schools are safer than they have ever been.  I offer this point with no intended disrespect to any victim of school violence. I think I've made it clear how awful I view these recent events.  But the data bears out that school is among the safest places children ever go, ultimately far safer than actually being in their own homes. 

I hope that educators themselves will emerge as the voice of reason on this topic.  My fear is that, like the pundits in the mainstream media, they will fall into one of the two dominant camps, advocating either for more guns or less, while neglecting the larger difficulties involved with either approach.

We live in a world filled with uncertainty and suffering.  We should do what is reasonable to protect our children, and in fact, that's exactly what schools have been trying to do for some decades now.  It's a harsh reality that we can never create a perfect safe environment.  Trying to do so will simply create new and unforseen problems.

More on this topic, from several writers/sources I admire: Gene Healy of the Cato Institute on the NRA's hysterical reaction; Sam Rocha on the hypocrisy of both sides; and Ross Douthat on the void of meaningful policy ideas in response to school violence.

Woodford County school deserves criticism, but so does the testing obsession that contributed

The Kentucky Human Rights Commission has joined the chorus of voices condemning Woodford County High School for its recent ill-advised letter to African American parents announcing a special assembly to discuss the academic performance of Black students.  When parents raised a ruckus the school immediately cancelled its plans and the Woodford County superintendent issued an apology, acknowledging that the letter was "poorly worded."  Kentucky education commissioner Terry Holliday sent a stern warning to the superintendent calling the letter a "lapse in judgment" and calling for corrective action to assure such an event doesn't occur again.

While the leadership of Woodford County High deserves this criticism, it would be a shame if this episode passes without some reflection on the part of educators and the general public as to why a school would feel motivated to send such a letter in the first place.

Provisions of both state and federal school accountability laws hold educators responsible for improving the overall test scores of students who are African American, Hispanic, have disabilities, and/or who receive free or reduced lunch.  There's a good reason for this, of course.  Historically these groups of students have significantly underperformed Whites and students without disabilities and who don't receive free or reduced lunch.  Beginning with the federal No Child Left Behind Act, policy makers recognized this unacceptable disparity and since then educators have responded with various strategies to try and close the achievement gap.

In many schools, however, this has led to an overemphasis on students' membership in various groups, rather than their individual performance level. 

Let me emphasize that I have no knowledge of instructional practices at Woodford County High, so I can't say if this has happened there in the past.  But I know from first-hand experience as a teacher and administrator that schools face a huge temptation, in their effort to prioritize resources, to devote extra attention, not to all struggling students or even all African American students, but to African American students whose past performance suggests the possibility of easily scoring proficient on state exams, thus giving the school an extra accountability boost. 

In educational parlance, these students are known as "bubble kids," (they are on the "bubble" between the "apprentice" and "proficient" performance levels), or sometimes more cynically, as "low hanging fruit."  They are even more valuable to the school if they occupy multiple accountability categories, like being African American and receiving free and reduced lunch.

The effect of all this is that educators begin to see students more as potential test scores than as individual learners with complex needs.  It also means that some students whose performance appears intractably poor may get a minimal amount of attention and support.

What I'm describing is the product of an educational system that, because of the very structure of school accountability, is obsessed with testing and test scores, and not (necessarily) a particular attitude toward groups of students as a whole.  Still not a flattering picture.

It's important to note that Kentucky schools have made a great deal of progress in moving toward a much more individualized approach to teaching and learning in recent years.  Practically every school in Kentucky has initiated a system of tiered interventions to provide extra attention to every student who is struggling to reach proficiency, regardless of their ethnicity, disability, or socio-economic status.

But the ultimate focus in many schools remains the same: higher student performance as measured by state exams.

Again, I can't say if any of this was at work in Woodford County High's decision to issue that letter to parents and call an assembly with African American students.  Woodford County is a very high performing school district by any measure.  Woodford County High's 2011-2012 school report card indicates that it had too few African American students to be accountable for their group performance under NCLB.  But the overemphasis on leveraging higher test scores for groups of students and for students in general is typical for most schools in Kentucky.

I'm not suggesting, as some educators have, that we get rid of the tests or school accountability.  Taxpayers deserve some clear indicators of what students are learning.  But as someone who trains aspiring school leaders, I believe we need to shift our emphasis toward the inputs in the learning process, especially classroom-level instruction, rather than the outputs of test scores. 

This means schools should continue to work toward having a focused, high-quality curriculum guaranteed to all students, and that teachers should deliver well-structured lessons that include frequent, ungraded assessments of student progress toward learning targets, and make regular adjustments in their teaching based on this progress.  And this should happen in every classroom.

I know many schools have been diligently working toward doing just what I'm describing, probably in Woodford County as well.  But I also know from experience that most Kentucky schools have a long way to go in this regard.  Far too many schools still put all their improvement energies into various intervention and support programs without making significant changes in everyday teaching practices.

If we devote more energy to improving the teaching and learning experience in every classroom and to responding to individual learning needs, schools could not only avoid the kinds of embarrassments recently experienced in Woodford County, but test scores for all students might ultimately improve as well.

Education a la carte: Is this what the high school of the future will look like?

A very thoughtful Reuters news story out this week explores how several states are revolutionizing learning by allowing public school students to build their own curriculum by piecing together learning experiences facilitated by a wide variety of educational providers (including private vendors).

A teenager in Louisiana, for instance, might study algebra online with a private tutor, business in a local entrepreneur's living room, literature at a community college and test prep with the national firm Princeton Review - with taxpayers picking up the tab for it all.

The story notes that at least four states have implemented or are considering legislation that would allow or expand such opportunities for a wide range of students.

As students and regular readers of mine know, I've become increasingly convinced that after three decades of massive, top-down, state-mandated policy changes designed to improve schools, relatively little has changed.  It is starting to look like the very structure of schooling itself is an intractable obstacle to educational reform.  If public schooling, especially at the high school level, is to survive much longer, it needs to be dismantled and replaced by something totally new and different.  (You can read some of my key posts on this topic here, here, and here).

When I say this to practicing educators, the first response is usually to ask what exactly the new structures of schooling will look like.  And on this count, I'm not prophetic enough to know, except to say that I think we need meaningful structures of school choice to make it happen, that the alternative must be radically student-centered, that technology is going to play a key role in whatever emerges, and that smart educators will try to position themselves as social entrepreneurs on the cutting edge of these developments.

This news story on "a la carte" approaches to educational delivery seems to offer a specific example of what the emerging experience of "school" might look like.  And its author, Stephanie Simon, deftly points out how the educational establishment is already digging in its heels in opposition:

The concept alarms many traditional educators. They fear public schools will lose funding to private vendors and will end up with such crimped budgets that they won't be able to provide a full range of academic classes, much less extras like sports, clubs and arts. That, in turn, could accelerate the exodus of students and the cutbacks in funding.

Teachers, superintendents and school board members also warn that an a la carte system could leave behind children from poor or unstable homes who may not have computers to take online classes, transportation to reach far-flung vendors, or adult guidance to help them sort through a dizzying menu of options. The system also has the potential to leave students unsupervised for large chunks of the day, which could raise safety and discipline concerns.

I'll give these "traditional educators" the benefit of the doubt and assume they are really motivated by a concern for students and not just maintaining a grip on the monopolistic educational structure that guarantees a government salary and generous benefits for school employees. 

Here's the thing: a loss of funding for traditional schooling is only a problem as long as you try to hold on to the structure of traditional schooling.  If we recognize that traditional schooling is at the heart of the problem itself, then we cease to fret over what is going to happen to our schools.  And why do we assume that traditional schooling is the only way to expose kids (including poor kids) to the arts, sports, and diverse learning experiences (the latter of which we aren't doing very well anyway)? 

In her recent article in First Things on educational pluralism, Ashley Rogers Berner explains how many other countries understand that education can be a public good, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you need a government-run institution to support it.  We could allow every student an allotment of public dollars to pursue educational services from a vast array of sources (which would ultimately have to be approved by the state, of course).  The devil of how that works would be in the details, but the point is that there is no reason to assume that you need the massive, costly, structures of the public education system to meet the learning needs of poor children.  In fact, it's that one-size-fits-all system that potentially hurts poor kids the most.

And I thoroughly reject the educationally paternalistic argument that we can't trust kids (or their parents) with this level of flexibility in their time or learning.

Read the whole Reuter's story for a good presentation of the arguments on both sides, and the many challenges raised by such an approach, from technology access to accountability.

Is this the solution?  I don't know.  It's a solution that recognizes the need to completely rethink our approach to public schooling, especially at the high school level.  I'm just pleased that there are states and policymakers bold enough to try a new approach.

UPDATE: I think it's worth pointing that, as the story notes, these new approaches to educational delivery do not preclude a role for "schools."  One person interviewed mentions the possibility of students still having a school as "home base," or a "hub," some place they regularly go for counseling, support services, and even (perhaps) to learn. 

Hear me discuss districts of innovation, charter schools on Innovate Kentucky podcast

I was happy to be interviewed recently about Kentucky's new "districts of innovation" law and the prospects for charter schools in a recent podcast from Innovate Kentucky, a WKU-based initiative to promote creative and expanded delivery of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) subjects in schools.

Hosted by Innovate Kentucky's Josh Raymer, the program features interviews with me and David Cook, Director of Innovation at the Kentucky Department of Education.  You can listen to the complete podcast here (total program just under one hour in length; my comments start around 36 minutes in).  Read some of my previous thoughts on districts of innovation here.

I've known Mr. Cook professionally for several years and he has done a terrific job crafting the regulations that will govern Kentucky's new districts of innovation initiative.  In the podcast he explores the kinds of flexibility districts of innovation will be afforded, and some of the creative approaches they might use in developing new approaches to teaching and learning.

I do, however, have to take exception with David's assertion that the districts of innovation law is very much like charter school legislation.  "I don't like to hear that this is so far from charter legislation that it isn't even close," he said.  "This is actually charter legislation, it's just written for a different audience if you will."

But, frankly, it is not even close.  House Bill 37 does give districts of innovation the kind of flexibility that charter schools are afforded in other states, but what makes charter school legislation a really powerful tool for educational innovation is that families of modest means might finally have a choice in where their children attend school.  There are no choice mechanisms in HB 37.  Families stuck in lousy schools will remain stuck.  Moreover, well-crafted charter legislation (like that proposed by Rep. Brad Montell) holds charter schools accountable in the ultimate way: such schools that fail to post high levels of student achievement (or that fail to attract students) will be closed down.  Under our current regime, even with districts of innovation, poor performing schools will simply continue to suck up tax-payer dollars as they always have.

Where David Cook and I agree, though, is that there's no need for "either/or" thinking on this matter.  I am happy to have HB 37 and I hope many districts achieve genuine innovation and sharp gains in student learning through their participation (though I remain skeptical that HB 37 was really necessary to do these things, but no matter: more power to districts that can leverage this law to do something good for kids).  I just remain firmly committed to the need for school choice because HB 37 did nothing to address the lack of competition and accountability that undermines public schooling in Kentucky and elsewhere.

"Ritual Hazing of Assistant Principals" in December 2012 issue of School Administrator magazine

The December issue of School Administrator magazine features my article, "The Ritual Hazing of Assistant Principals," which originally appeared on a post here on this blog.  The article describes research by Dr. Denise Armstrong of Brock University, who explored the "rites of passage" faced by new assistant principals. 

Armstrong's research does not paint a pretty picture.  She found that many assistant principals faced a transition into administration that was grueling and lonely.  Assistant principals were consigned to highly stressful tasks with little direction and support from principals, and few opportunities for growing their capacities as instructional leaders.  With substantial responsibility but very little actual power or authority, assistant principals felt neither like teachers nor real school leaders.  And while most assistant principals eventually gained some equilibrium in their work after a few years, their idealism and hope for how they might transform teaching and learning through a career in administration was greatly diminished.

In my article I call on principals and superintendents to reflect on this information and begin crafting more supportive structures for new assistant principals, since this role is frequently the gateway for many teachers who enter the field of school administration.

I'm now considering a book proposal on this topic.  My thoughts about how to properly socialize assistant principals into their roles as school administrators coincide with my interests in contemplative leadership: how do we make our schools and workplaces more humane and just as well as effective?  How do we build working relationships that foster authentic communication and mutual support, as well as organizational excellence?  How do we learn to lead with our heads and our hearts?

Free SLLA test prep session returning to WKU in February 2013

My WKU colleague, Dr. Mike Putnam, will be reprising his hugely popular, entirely free, test prep session for the School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA), required of all aspiring school principals in Kentucky and many other states.  The session will be held on February 1 from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. Central time, continuing on February 2, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in Gary Ransdell Hall Room 3003 on WKU's main campus.

The next round of SLLA testing will be the week of February 4 through 9 at a cost of $375.

Dr. Putnam developed this test review with Dr. Dennis Bunch of the University of Mississippi.  Previous prep sessions at WKU have resulted in a 100 percent pass rate for participants.  Kentucky currently has a passing cut score of 160 on the SLLA.

The session will include a review of the six ISLLC standards upon which the SLLA is based, and feature timed test prep exercises and hands-on activities and discussions.  Participants must agree to confidentially share their SLLA test score results with Dr. Putnam, as he and Dr. Bunch use this data to continue refining the test prep process and may publish an analysis of results in the future.

Contact Dr. Putnam at michael.putnam@wku.edu by end of the day on January 25.  Space is limited and late registrations are not permitted.

EALR course additions for Spring 2013

The Department of Educational Administration, Leadership, & Research has posted some additional courses and course sections to the Spring 2013 schedule of classes.  EDAD 682, School-Community Relations, required for Level I Principal certification, will be offered in weekend  format at WKU's main campus. 

Also, an additional section of EDAD 590, Administration of School Personnel, will be offered online.  This course  is required for Level II Principal certification.  Due to high demand for this class, three sections of EDAD 590 will now be offered in Spring  2013, including two online sections on one weekend section.  See the WKU course schedule for more details and to register. 

Just as a reminder, all required courses for both Level I and Level II Principal certification must be completed by December 2013.

We are currently admitting students for the new revised principal preparation program and expect to launch our first cohort in Fall 2013.  Please let other aspiring administrators know about this exciting opportunity.

Discussing leadership coaching at Innovation Summit

I was delighted to share my recent research on instructional leadership coaching for school principals at last week's 2012 Innovation Summit sponsored by AdvancEd Kentucky and the University of Kentucky College of Education.  At a poster session, I was able to share the latest  phase of my on-going research developing coaching protocols to help school principals improve their instructional leadership using a theory of practice framework.

Pictured with me (left to right) are my research partner, Dr. Tom Stewart of Austin Peay State University and our friends from the Monroe County Schools, who hosted the most recent round of coaching activities: Amy Thompson, Monroe County assistant superintendent, and Cecilia Stephens, elementary instructional supervisor.  I am very grateful to Amy, Cecilia, Superintendent Lewis Carter, and all the leadership in Monroe County for their thoughtful, active participation in our work.

We had many great conversations with education leaders from around Kentucky at our presentation.  Leadership coaching is increasingly recognized as an essential strategy for professional growth and we were gratified to share ideas about future applications of our work, including applying our protocol with superintendents and district-level school leaders, developing peer coaching applications, and integrating our work using the Enneagram personality system with coaching. 

Look for formal publication of our most recent coaching research within the next year.  The first phase was published in the October edition of Qualitative Research in Education.

More thoughts on the Innovation Summit's keynote presentation from Tony Wagner later this week.