"Innovation without adequate implementation support is like attempting to drive a car without any gasoline in it."--Dean Fixen

In "Some Thoughts on Education Nation," John Merrow declares "enough already" to all the enthusiasm for innovation. "Please give equal time to ‘imitation.’ We have lots of good schools and good programs and good teachers, stuff that can and should be copied."

Merrow might be on the right track when he calls for less innovation and more imitation. However, he misses the point. The problem is that schools are innovating and imitating too much!

All Diets Work

The fact is that very few school improvement initiatives actually work, not because they are not viable, but because they are never implemented. In most cases, schools are not given sufficient time and resources to properly implement what turn out to be multi-phase projects.

Year after year, schools are asked to rush for one latest and greatest innovation to the next. Even before the last initiative is properly or fully implemented, schools are forced to switch gears and move on to the next fad.

Chaos Increases Turnover

The chaos of "flavor-of-the-week" changes frustrates and demoralizes teachers to the point of driving them from the profession. Fully half of all new teachers become frustrated and leave the profession within three to five years, while the veteran teachers and school leaders "left behind" learn to survive and ride out the current wave until the next silver bullet de jour comes along. Ironically, the obsession with change and cosmetic innovation results in everything remaining pretty much the same.

Some of this "change obsession" is due to the extremely high turnover of superintendents and school principals. New leaders are hired because they promise new and better. They believe that they are expected to do things differently.

Churning Leads to Confusion

Another reason for the "change obsession" is the belief that "we aren't working hard unless we are doing something new and innovative every year." I run into this all the time. In fact, even in high-level policy discussions I hear, "but we have to do something different." It doesn't matter what "it" is or if "it" has any chance of success. It just matters that we do something.

The Right Way

Advocates for "responsible change," who seek to change the culture of a school over a period of three to six years, are accused of favoring the status quo. In reality, there is no status quo, unless of course you refer to the constantly shifting sands as the status quo.

Merrow is correct when he says that we need more imitation. We need to do what successful, high-performing schools have always done. These schools collaboratively develop an approach to improvement that is supported by research but customized to the unique DNA of their school and community. High-performing schools determine what their students need in order to succeed and they do it over and over again, day in and day out, year in and year out in every classroom. In other words, successful schools implement with fidelity!

Next: School Improvement: What or How?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:45 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

According to the Washington Post, all 27 Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) high school principals are fed up.  They are tired of an apparently never ending string of cafeteria food fights that are occurring on a regular basis in their buildings.  It is critical for the public to understand that these events bear scant similarities to the iconic scene from “Animal House”.  According to the Post:

“One day in March, pranksters turned the cafeteria at Robert E. Lee High School in Fairfax County into a maelstrom of hurled milk cartons and leftover lunch.

“Close to 100 teenagers joined the melee, flinging sandwiches and water bottles. Hundreds of others, caught in the crossfire, screamed and ran for the exits. A 17-year-old, eight months pregnant, was knocked to the ground.

“Two students — recent immigrants who presumably had little experience with the modern American food fight — hyperventilated to such a degree that officials called 911.”

Clearly, unlike scenes from a movie, there is nothing funny about these incidents. And many are far from random.  A related article described another dust up at a different FCPS school, which featured hundreds of raw eggs and a false fire alarm all of which resulted in more than 600 students fleeing in a treacherous and slippery panic. Add the possibility of salmonella contamination and you have raised the potential negative outcomes to a whole new level.  Since it is hard to imagine raw eggs as a typical item in a student backpack, this food fight was hardly an impromptu event.

What the principals want

According to the principals in the district, they have limited avenues for controlling the situation.  Rarely are the guilty parties being caught and punished.  Consequently they are requesting the installation of cameras in the cafeterias as a deterrent.  At a cost of $8,000 per school this request would seem reasonable.  In fact, all but three of the principals have offered to fund the cameras out of their own school monies.  The debate within the school community appears to be centering on privacy issues. 

From the classroom teacher’s point of view

While the potential physical harm from these food fights should be sufficient to mandate the installation of the cameras, there are educational reasons to consider as well.  The learning environment of a school is a delicate balance.  The days prior to winter break, the first warm spring day or the simple forecast of snow can make maintaining student focus difficult.  Any incident such as the one at Lee HS, which includes flying food, ambulances, ruined clothes and hundreds of students milling around in hallways will bring academic pursuits to a complete halt.  Ask any of the teachers at that school how their afternoon classes responded to the curriculum that day.  In fact, that question could easily be expanded to the academic progress for the rest of that week. 

Install the cameras!

The privacy arguments are a bit vague. It is difficult to understand exactly what a video of a cafeteria would reveal that would be such an invasion.  It is highly doubtful that the film would be used to evaluate a student’s eating etiquette.  What it could do, however, is pinpoint the perpetrators of fights (food and otherwise), bullying, drug transactions among other negative behavior.  More importantly until such activities are stopped, the education of a large portion of a school population will continue to be hijacked. 

It is time to give principals the ability to roll the tape!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:17 PM | Permalink

Principals and teachers working in diverse, high-poverty schools are constantly challenged, even on a normal school day. In addition to the need to raise the achievement of each and every one of our students, our school had to overcome a number of externally imposed challenges. In fact, our teachers designed a t-shirt to commemorate our decade-long series of ordeals.

The back of the shirt read:

WE SURVIVED...

Seven years of renovation

SOLs (Virginia Standards of Learning)

Columbine

September 11, 2001

The Beltway Sniper

The War in Iraq

The Winter of 2003

No Child Left Behind

"The Worm" (a computer virus that virtually shutdown our entire school system)

Hurricane Isabel

Lead in our water

"The Meltdown" (We lost all power to for an entire day.)

The front of the shirt read:

AND WE THRIVED!

J.E.B. Stuart High School

A Breakthrough High School

Without a doubt, of all the events, September 11, 2001 sticks out in my memory, just as it does for many Americans, most of whom will never forget what they were doing and where they were on that fateful day.

Ten years ago, our diverse, high-poverty school was basking in the light of being featured in highly complimentary article titled "Changing America" in the September, 2001 issue of National Geographic Magazine. The article was the culmination of a two-year long vetting by the Magazine's writers and photographers, who were given 24/7 access to the school and homes of our students.

The article, which was initially intended to focus on the difficulty that immigrant populations had assimilating into American culture, ended up being a celebration of the culture of our school as a focal point of our diverse community. If anything, and I mean anything, wasn't working in our school, the writers and photographers would have found it. It was as though we had gone through a two-year long audit of our school culture.

National Geographic Magazine, I later learned, is renowned in the field of journalism for their thoroughness. Yes, this was risky, but we came through with flying colors, and we all breathed a big sigh of relief when the issue was finally released. Although we didn't know it at the time, we wouldn't have long to enjoy our success.

Expecting the Unexpected

There are some things that happen in schools that simply cannot be anticipated. We conduct fire drills and bus evacuation drills. We plan for bomb threats and chemical and biological attacks, but sometimes things just happen and our work is put to a real-world test, not a multiple choice or fill in the blank test, but a real honest-to-goodness test. If and when the unexpected occur, and we, as school leaders, and our staff have done our jobs, we pass the test with flying colors. If not, things could get pretty ugly.

September 11, 2001 was just such a day. For our school, it was the mother of all tests. We never could have anticipated the tragic events of that day. It was one of those days that put everything we did in a school to the test. If we had done our homework in building strong relationships, and a warm, inviting school culture, and made enough deposits into our "emotional bank account" we would get through this unscathed. If we thought that National Geographic had been a test of our work, we hadn't seen anything yet. Working in America's "most diverse high school" on September 11, 2001 was a day that I will always remember.

Shock and Disbelief!

Our school resource officer burst into our weekly staff meeting and announced that we were under attack. We immediately turned on the television in time to see the second plane fly into one of the Twin Towers. Like everyone else, including the network reporters, we were confused and horrified. There were many false reports made that day. So, we had to try to sort rumors from reality. For example, our resource officer received reports that one of the nearby apartment buildings, in which many of our student lived, had been bombed and that vehicles were exploding on the highway near the school. Both turned out to be false. However, when I looked out of my window, I could see smoke billowing overhead. We didn't know it at the time, but that smoke was coming from the plane that had crashed into the Pentagon. In the following days, we learned that we lost several parents who worked there.

Compounding the fears of everyone was the fact that all the cell lines were jammed. It was impossible to reach anyone. We felt isolated and we learned early on that we were on our own.

We knew couldn't control what happened outside of the school, but we could impact what happened inside the school. We had to be calm and to maintain a sense of business-as-usual. Our first thoughts went out to our own families, but we had to keep our focus on our responsibility to protect and care for 1,500 other peoples' children.

We knew that everyone would be watching us and taking their cues from us. Despite the confusion and turmoil that we all felt on the inside, we knew that we had to be visible and put on a positive face. We had no choice. We had to hold it together!

As soon as I could, I went on to the PA system and made an announcement informing everyone of what we knew at the time. We immediately went into action circulating through the building to take the pulse of the teachers and students. Many of the classes had already turned on their televisions, and the students were fixated on the screens.

Our school was undergoing a major renovation and we had a number of construction workers in the building every day. As soon as the news of the attacks circulated, they could be seen literally running from the building.

After a while, it became apparent to us that we needed to limit prolonged viewing of TV news coverage, because it was too emotionally gut wrenching for our students to helplessly watch constant reruns of scenes of planes flying into buildings and people jumping to their deaths. So, early on we decided to limit the number of cable stations available to the classrooms and to have our librarian watch all the major networks, take notes, sort out truth from rumor, and provide me with periodic reports, which I delivered to the entire school.

Our teachers were doing a fantastic job of holding things together in the classrooms. Our concern focused on the times that the teachers were not with the students. We knew that class changes and lunch would be our critical times. If we could get through the lunch periods without a melt down, we would be home free. We were all present in the cafeteria and we recruited some teachers to be available to talk with students.

Everything was going smoothly until some of our parents, who had left their places of work, arrived. Some had come with the intention of taking their children home. Some even bypassed the main office and rushed into the cafeteria sobbing. I am proud to say that it was the students who calmed their parents. I distinctly remember the daughter of one local official telling her mother, who had come to pick her up and take her home, "Calm down. I don't want to go home. We are safe here! Everything is okay. I want to stay here with my friends." When I heard that statement, I knew things would be all right.

At the End of the Day

Eventually, the school day ended without incident. The construction workers left, and many parents departed their places of work to come to the school to pick up their kids. However, despite the fact that we all had our own families and children, our entire staff remained at the school. We knew that we were all that our kids had that day. If our students needed calming down and comforting, we were the one who would do it. As far as we knew, we were all they had.

9/11 was a big test for our school. We had to make a huge withdrawal from our "emotional bank account" that day. Fortunately for all involved, our teachers and staff had made so many deposits with so many kids that this withdrawal was hardly noticed. Our students trusted us, not because of who we were. They trusted us because of the relationships we built with them every day, day in and day out.

Our students knew that we cared about them, because we demonstrated it to them in so many ways ranging from a simple smile or holding a door to providing a clean, safe and inviting school environment where they felt wanted and, more importantly, where they wanted to be. In retrospect, we passed all the big tests our school faced because of all the little things we all did every day.

The Bottom Line

When the unexpected occurs, and it will, schools can't fake it. We have either earned trust or we haven't. Ultimately, we have either done the right thing, the right way, for the right reason or we haven't, and our students know it. Believe me! They know it and they will show it!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:36 AM | Permalink

I could have sworn that goalie Tim Thomas was talking about the evaluation of principals when he met with the press following the Boston Bruins victory in the Stanley Cup Finals. Thomas, whose meteoric rise from minor league obscurity to Most Valuable Player (MVP) in the National Hockey League Finals, had a reaction that reminded me of how I felt when I received an "all exemplary" evaluation a few years ago.

When the press asked Thomas how it felt to be the MVP, he matter-of-factly responded that 'if I get off to a bad start next year, the MVP may buy me some extra time, but I know that if I don't produce, I will be gone.'

I felt no joy from my A+ evaluation. Most high school principals have learned over time that when something good happens, something bad will come along to bring you back down to earth. When our school was honored with a Presidential Visit, to the surprise of my staff, I decided to hold the regularly scheduled Faculty Advisory Committee meeting that same day. When asked why, I responded, "They will make certain that I am brought back to earth."

Why no happiness from a stellar evaluation? First, I felt more of a sense of relief than joy. I had taken a big career risk going to work in a high-poverty school just as our State (Virginia) decided to become a high-stakes accountability state, and I had paid a heavy personal price for it. I didn't have a good night's sleep for over five years.

Nevertheless, nothing could have been more rewarding than working with an outstanding group of teacher leaders, all of whom had years of service in that school, to turn the school from the ranks of the condemned to that of the commended. Second, the opinion of the people in our school was more important to me than the evaluation mainly because the evaluator had no idea what I actually did. Finally, and most importantly, like Tim Thomas, I knew that the evaluation wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. I knew that I served at the pleasure of the Superintendent and the School Board and that I could be removed and replaced on a whim. Something could go wrong the next day, and, if it was expedient to do so, I would be unceremoniously thrown under the proverbial bus without hesitation.

My attitude toward the current discussions about better ways to evaluate principals is simple. Bring it on, because it doesn't matter. As one of my first principals told me, "you can delegate responsibility, but you can never delegate accountability." The principal is solely accountable for everything that goes wrong in a school, and believe me, there is a lot that can go wrong in a school.

Being a principal is similar to being a coach in a professional sport. When things go wrong, it is the coach's fault. When things go well, it was because the team had good players. In school, when things go wrong, it is the principal's fault. When things go right, it's because the school has great teachers.

The Bottom Line

The principal must answer for everything that happens in a school. The evaluation methodology will not change the culture, which is set up to squeeze those in the middle--the school principal. True, over time, principals can earn some extra credit that may buy a little extra time, but a principal can and will be removed at a moment's notice irrespective of their most recent evaluation.

Instead of focusing on evaluating principals, the emphasis should be first on building the capacity of current principals to do their jobs and secondly on reducing principal turnover.  However, building capacity and reducing turnover will require more effort than I believe the so-called experts are willing to exert or fund.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:03 AM | Permalink

Budget shortfalls are forcing major reductions in the teaching staff in many schools and districts across the country. At the same time, some schools are fortunate enough to be filling vacancies.

For those fortunate few, I have compiled a list of posts from this blog that relate to interviewing and hiring teachers.

Hiring Teachers: Control or Cooperation

Building the Best Educational Staff: Part 1

Building the Best Educational Staff: Part 2

Building the Best Educational Staff: Part 3 The Interview

Building the Best Educational Staff: Part 4 Evaluation

Defining A Good Teacher

Finding the Best Teachers: Who's Interviewing Whom?

Finding the Best Teachers: Interviewing Follow-up

Finding the Best Teachers: Part 1

Finding the Best Teachers: Part 2

Finding the Best Teachers: Part 3

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:27 AM | Permalink

While the headlines remind us of the current obsession with firing principals and teachers, some around the country have actually read the research and have come to recognize that the answer is not firing, but recruiting and retaining school leaders. They are taking a more enlightened, long-term approach to school leadership by seeking to reduce turnover and help shorten the learning curve for new principals.

According to a recent report in Edutopia, "school districts are seeking new ways to attract and retain effective administrators. One solution has been to provide mentors. With "40 percent of U.S. school principals reaching retirement age in the next decade, the increasing complexity and pressures of the job, and a growing student population," there simply aren't enough effective leaders out there and the current climate may be deterring future leaders from pursuing the principalship.

Takeaways

Mentors can help new school leaders face a number of critical issues:

Complexity - Leading a school is a complex task that "encompasses so much that it's impossible to write down in a job description."

Learning Curve - Time pressures are real. While experts agree that it takes 4-6 years to change the culture of a school, the reality is that most new school leaders are expected to show improvements in student achievement right away.  Thus, the old "sink-or-swim method" which "often delays mastery of the job for teachers, it can also impede the success and job satisfaction of principals." Mentors can help get new principals up to speed quicker by helping them make use of OPE--Other People's Experience.

Isolation - New principals discover quickly that loneliness comes with the job. A mentor can help soften the effects of feelings of isolation by providing a sympathetic ear and a voice of experience.

Formal and Informal - Albuquerque Public Schools has established a formal mentor program that pays the mentor a small annual stipend. Online chats are another way to support both new and veteran school leaders.

Overcome Barriers - "Eager new principals who begin with big plans for immediately revamping instruction and turning the school into a first-class academic institution find that their dreams often take second place to a host of less pleasant endeavors: dealing with an ocean of bureaucratic paperwork; reacting to federal, state, and local initiatives such as zero-tolerance policies for drug abuse and sexual harassment that they may or may not agree with; being aware of the litigious nature of society today without resorting to nonsensical policies to avoid lawsuits; responding calmly to sometimes outrageous parent demands; riding herd on uninspiring or incompetent teachers while maintaining morale among the able and outstanding teachers; working long hours with night and weekend school-related activities, and taking pains to ensure that violence doesn't erupt at the school while keeping in perspective the thought that Columbine could happen anywhere. And financially, it often doesn't make sense to move from master teacher to principal."

Skills - The article cites four important skills that new principals need to learn and mentors can help teach: delegation, time management, ability to see the "big picture," and dealing with all kinds of people. Notice that instructional leadership is not mentioned.

Bottom Line

As a young administrator, I was fortunate to work in a school system in which the culture placed a premium on principals growing future principals. Having an assistant promoted to the principalship was a badge of honor and symbolic of the skills of that veteran leader. The best principals grew new principals.

Somehow, over the years, the importance of leaders growing leaders disappeared. However, I learned that growing future school leaders was more about making it a priority than it was about having a specific expertise or specialized training.

I found a particularly important piece of advice from a veteran principal hidden away in the article. "If you select one change that is most important to you and focus on that, your chance of being successful is greatly enhanced." This not only applies to new principals, but to veteran principals as well.

Too many schools are working on too many initiatives. As a result, their energies and efforts are dissipated to the point that nothing gets done. Have a clear focus. Make it simple. Repeat it over and over. Work on it, for years if need be, until you have it right before moving on to other things. In one school the focus may be literacy. In another, the focus may be attendance. In another, the focus may be a student advisory. While high-performing schools may not all have the same focus, they consistently make their main thing, the main thing.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:46 PM | Permalink

If you have been reading my latest posts, you might jump to the conclusion that I am against accountability, including merit pay for teachers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I embraced accountability because it forced us to do what we should have been doing all along--hold all students to higher standards. As a principal, I worked in a high-stakes accountability state (Virginia), and that accountability system gave our school the leverage it needed to promote increased rigor and high expectations for all students.

What does a high-stakes accountability environment look like? In a high stakes accountability environment, everyone including students and schools are held accountable.

In too many states, there is accountability for teachers and schools, but no accountability for students. In those states, the destiny of the school and fate of the teachers rests on the good will of the students. If the students feel like taking the state test, they do. If they don't feel like it, they "flag the test." How can so many states hold everyone but the students, who actually take the tests, accountable? It makes absolutely no sense.

I worked in Virginia throughout the first decade of the SOL, Standards of Learning, assessments. Initially, the tests were set up to discredit and embarrass public schools. However, when just about every school failed the tests, the parents revolted and the state threw out the old guard and worked with schools to develop a fair system, which included the following for high school:

Schools were held accountability.

• Eleven end-of-course exams
• Schools had to achieve a 70% proficiency rate or lose state accreditation.
• Schools were held to graduation targets.
• Schools who failed to achieve prescribed targets were required to go through a school improvement process.

Students were held accountable.

• The end-of-course exams acted as barriers to graduation.
• Students were required to pass the courses and six of the eleven end-of-course exams in order to earn a diploma.
• At the urging of the Virginia Association of Secondary Principals, the State strengthened existing attendance laws and stepped up enforcement.
• No students were "Christmas-treeing" tests in Virginia. Students took the test seriously because they counted for them and, even if they had the six required verified credits, they cared because their teachers cared so much.

Note: There was no statistically significant change in graduation rates in the barrier year, 2004, because the State initiated a "Project Graduation" initiative that began in 2000.

Teachers were not held individually accountable.

There was no need to hold teachers personally accountable, because they held themselves to such high standards. Our teachers expected more of themselves than anyone else would ever expect of them. They felt a sense of shared responsibility and a commitment to their students, their colleagues, and to the school as a whole. They understood that test scores reflected on "our school" and on "our students." In fact, teachers were so committed to student success that we had to be very careful how we reported test results, lest we single out or inadvertently identify any one individual teacher. Our teachers took each test score personally. Instead of having to light a fire under our teachers, we had to hold hands and sooth hurt feelings, because they cared so much.

That is the kind of accountability environment we want. We want students to take the tests seriously. We want the teachers to care about the success of their students. We want a collegial environment that encourages collective effort and cooperation. We want the students to say that the "teachers would never give up on us."

Why Do We Need Merit Pay?

Coming from that experience explains why I don't understand the merit pay argument. Anyone who knows teachers knows that money is not a motivator. They don't need to be cajoled with promises of bonuses to dedicate themselves. In fact, like most achievement-motivated professionals, teachers are insulted and demotivated by the use of tangible rewards. Teachers want what Frederick Herzberg called "motivators"--recognition, challenging work, responsibility.

Pay teachers as professionals! Pay them in proportion to their contribution to society. Stop nickel-and-diming them with promises of meager bonuses!

What Teachers Really Want

Supportive Leadership - More than anything else, including higher pay (45%), 40,000 teachers surveyed reported that they want supportive leadership (68%). Supportive leadership ensures that all of the following are available to teachers in the school.

Sense of Purpose - In the long run, what most motivates teachers is a sense of purpose--the desire to make a difference in the lives of their students. After all, that is why we became educators. However, when teachers drive old beaten up cars and they can't even afford to live in the communities in which they teach, it is hard to talk to them about a higher purpose.

Mastery - Teachers want to feel that they are skilled professionals. They want to feel that they are continually growing and improving. They want quality professional development that actually helps them improve their practice.

Self-Direction - Teachers want input into the key decisions that impact their profession on a daily basis. They want opportunities to collaborate with their colleagues.

Team - Teachers want to feel that they are a part of a collective effort. Teaching does not have to be lonely endeavor. Schools work best when teachers are committed to each other and the success of their students.

Professionals - Teachers want to be treated as professionals. They want to be treated like people not workers.

The Bottom Line

Professionals keep score, but their score is actually a true reflection of actual performance. Some of the current practices, such as not holding students accountable for test scores, and some of the proposals like merit pay and value-added teacher evaluations fail to pass the reality test and set up schools to fail. For example, our school wide literacy effort made a big difference in student performance on State assessments. However, since literacy strategies were practiced in every classroom every day, it was impossible to single out an individual teacher to receive a merit pay bonus.

Team efforts should garner collective rewards. Merit systems pit one teacher against another competing for scarce resources--the merit bonus. We need to reward and encourage collective effort not the individual all-stars teachers, who exemplified 20th century assembly line schools.

School leaders want and welcome accountability, but lets make it a meaningful and fair system, not one that singles out individuals for rewards or punishments. School leaders rely on the voluntary cooperation of teachers, students, and parents if the school is to succeed. Set us up to succeed!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:08 AM | Permalink

Teachers repeatedly complain to me that their students cannot do research at school because so many sites are blocked. In a recent interview, which is a must-read for all school staff and parents, Karen Cator of the U.S. Department of Education takes on what she calls "brute force technologies." According to Cator, many schools are over-complying with federal guidelines.

What you must know about content filtering

In the interview, "Cator parsed the rules of the Childrens Internet Protection Act, and provided guidance for teachers on how to proceed when it comes to interpreting the rules. To that end, here are six surprising rules that educators, administrators, parents and students might not know about website filtering in schools."

1.     Accessing YouTube is not violating CIPA rules.

2.     Websites don’t have to be blocked for teachers.

3.     Broad filters are not helpful.

4.     Schools will not lose E-rate funding by unblocking appropriate sites.

5.     Kids need to be taught how to be responsible digital citizens.

6.     Teachers should be trusted.

My Take

Content filtering is an important part of any school wide technology effort. I should know. In my former high school, every one of our 3,200 students had a laptop. We blocked inappropriate sites. On occasion, our staff blocked appropriate sites, but we had a simple remedy. If a teacher came across a site that she wanted unblocked, she simply emailed me the name of the site and the URL. I forwarded a request to our IT people and, within minutes the problem was solved. The key here is that the principal get involved and take some leadership. IT people are simply doing what they think is best. If they never hear from us, they have no idea that a problem exists. While it is true that some IT people practice the ABCs (Administration By Convenience), those individuals are rare. I have found most IT people to be particularly helpful, especially when the principal is willing to take the time to show interest and to get directly involved.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:53 AM | Permalink

Washington State and South Carolina have recently proposed alternative paths to the principalship.

Apparently education is the only profession that believes that it can increase the quality of those working in the profession, teachers and administrators, by reducing the minimum qualifications to enter. Actually, education professionals are not making such ludicrous recommendations, because unlike most professions, education is not controlled by practicing professionals. Education is controlled by legislatures, state departments of education, and a few high-profile foundations!

Imagine that there was a shortage of physicians in a specific field or region and a proposal was made to increase the number of physicians by allowing anyone with a master's degree in any field to become a physician. Substitute attorneys, accountants, dentists, or airline pilots for physicians in the previous statement and you get the idea.

In reality, the proposals in Washington State and South Carolina represent the latest in a long line of reform recommendations based on the belief that "anyone can do it." Anyone can teach, even with only five weeks of training. Anyone can be a principal.

Washington State - Thumbs Down

In a recent editorial, NASSP Executive Director, Gerald Tirozzi, addresses the Washington State plan. Tirozzi writes, "The shrinking pool of school leaders is a complex problem for which alternate certification provides an answer that is, to borrow from H. L. Mencken, “clear, simple, and wrong."

Tirozzi goes on to make some salient points:

-"These principals will have no credibility with teachers."

My Take: Research proves that the major weakness of school leaders is the ability to set instructional direction--instructional leaders. So, the answer to correcting that weakness and to improving student achievement and eliminating the achievement gap is to hire principals with no teaching experience?

- "The least qualified leaders will land in the highest need schools."

My Take: No reputable school system or school would hire a principal with no experience. What that means is those school systems and schools that are the poorest and most remote will be the only ones in the market for these alternative route principals. Ironically, it is these under-resourced schools that need the best, most experienced leaders and teachers. They also have the highest turnover in principals and teachers.

- It is hypocritical to advocate one educational approach for the masses and another for your own child. "Many a legislator sends his or her child to highly personalized private schools staffed by well-trained and experienced educators who, free from the burden of test prep, capitalize on a child’s natural curiosity with a curriculum as robust in art and music as in reading and math. There’s no hypocrisy in that—every parent wants the best for their child. The hypocrisy lies in legislators using their day jobs to advocate for a different kind of education for everyone else’s child."

My Take: Not only have the so-called reformers not attended public schools themselves, but they would never allow their own children to attend public schools with larger class sizes and less-qualified, underpaid teachers. Their mantra is 'High-quality education for my child and what we can afford for your child.'

South Carolina' Proposal - Thumbs Up

You can probably tell that I am not a fan of alternative certification plans for teachers or principals, particularly those that take shortcuts. When I first started heard about South Carolina's alternative route proposal, I was feeling the same way until I read an article that outlined the key features. Currently, South Carolina allows someone with a bachelor's degree in teaching can become a principal by being a certified classroom teacher for at least three years, then graduating from an approved college program in school leadership. The new proposal would allow someone with a master's degree in any field to enter a program that involves being an assistant principal for three years, then passing an exam to become a principal. When I read the phrase "serving as an assistant principal for three years," it caught my attention and, at least, partially changed my mind.

My Take: If someone, who has been a successful manager in a business, is willing to take a pay cut to enter education and will serve a three-year apprenticeship as an assistant principal, I say bring them on! Keep in mind that these individuals would not only serve an apprenticeship, but they would have to exhibit exemplary performance in order for the district to appoint them as principal after three years.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:37 AM | Permalink

In response to my recent post about fewer people interested in entering the teaching profession, a colleague sent me this message.

"Sad story - but true. One of my friends is a truly brilliant teacher leader who has been teaching over 25 years. Her daughter, equally brilliant, has wanted to be a teacher her entire life. She is a junior at a state university. A month ago she called her mom and told her she has changed her major because she is so upset with what is happening in the state."

I cannot remember a time in the last forty years when it was more difficult to be a teacher or a principal. Teachers and principals are literally under attack from the press, the feds, the state, and even their own district leaders resulting in schools becoming hostile work environments. As a result, fewer are going into teaching and fewer teachers are training to be principals just at a time when we need them the most.

The core of what we do happens in the classroom and teachers are the lifeblood of a school. According to recent report in the Los Angeles Times, one surefire way to undermine public schools is to cut off the supply of teachers:

1. Make Teaching Less Attractive

"It's kind of difficult to encourage people to become teachers when every time this time of year they hear about 20,000 pink slips going out."

"I think people are seeing it (teaching) as a less attractive career and a more stressful one."

"Potential teachers are discouraged by increasingly crowded classrooms and more emphasis than before on testing and scripted lessons."

2. Reduce Staffing = Fewer Teaching Positions

"Teacher layoffs and other education spending cuts are thinning more than the current ranks of California's classroom instructors. The number of people training to be teachers also is plummeting, and that trend is likely to continue." Fewer teaching positions mean fewer openings and larger class sizes. From experience I have learned that these larger class sizes will never be reduced.

3. Manufacture a teacher shortage

Education experts are warning of a shortage of new teachers in a few years as large numbers of baby boomers start to retire from teaching jobs and larger numbers of youngsters enter elementary school."

For example, according to a report by the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, the number of first- and second-year teachers in California dropped in half between the 2007-08 and 2009-10 academic years.

4. Train fewer teachers

In California, the number of teaching credentials issued annually fell 29% during the last five years. The Cal State University system has seen a 50% decline in enrollment in teacher preparation programs over an eight-year period.

An Essential Question

I will conclude by asking an important question. Given the current climate in public education, would you encourage your child to become a teacher? First, you know that layoffs and budget cuts mean that there are fewer openings. For many new graduates that means incurring sizable debt to pay for an education that will most likely not lead to gainful employment. Second, class sizes will continue to grow. Third, resources will continue to diminish. Fourth, expectations will continue to rise and accountability will continue to increase. Fifth, the blaming will get worse because of unrealistically high expectations and fewer resources. Finally, even if they do find a job, new teachers will most likely receive a pink slip every year for the first three to five years they are teaching. That means every March or April, you, as a parent, will get a depressing call that your son or daughter may not have a job next year. Even though I believe that teaching is among the highest callings, I must admit that I would not advise either of my children to become teachers, not unless there were big changes, and I don't see any on the horizon. Unfortunately, I see that I see things getting worse before they get better.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:20 AM | Permalink

I frequently use Reagan National Airport and my flight occasionally lands late at night. So, the story about two planes landing while the one and only air traffic controller on duty slept, caught my attention. Like many others, I was shocked to learn that more than a few airports, some of them considered major hubs, routinely schedule only one controller on duty.

My thoughts immediately turned to a recent airport experience. I was in an unnamed airport in a major city waiting in a long security line. For the sake of fairness, I must admit that, in most airports, security has gotten better in the past year. In this case, the line was getting longer and longer, yet there was only one security station screening passengers. I thought to myself, surely they will open more lines. I was wrong.

I counted thirteen uniformed TSA employees standing idle while they watched passengers screening through one checkpoint. It reminded me of when I was a kid listening to the adults joke about the state road crews. "One has a shovel or a broom and five others are watching."

I then imagined a scenario in which the one traffic controller on duty was sleeping while downstairs thirteen TSA employees observed one security checkpoint. Talk about misplaced priorities.

In my mind, landing planes takes priority over confiscating hair gel. Having more than one air traffic controllers on duty at a time is a non-negotiable. Clearly, some airports are majoring in the minors.

School leaders can use the misplaced priorities of our airports as a learning experience. Truth be told, most schools don't consistently do the things that improve student performance. We must decide on our priorities--two, no more than three, areas of focus. Next, we must say no to everything else. Our focus must be non-negotiable. Finally, we must continue until we have both mastered our priorities and accomplished our goals and objectives.

Ask yourself. What are our "must do's?" What are our "need to do's? What are our "nice to do's? In other words, what "must" we do every day in every classroom throughout our school in order to raise student performance? Once we determine our priorities, we must resolve to do those things with fidelity. We must do them consistently day in and day out, and we must do them over time, in many cases, for years.

Focus: Clear and Simple

For ten years, our school had a clear and simple focus. Note, I didn't use the word "easy," because there is nothing easy about improving student attendance and literacy skills. That is not to say that those were the only things we did. We totally revamped our approach to math, integrated technology, enhanced our ESL program, reduced suspensions, changed our school calendar to year-round, began mandatory after-school tutoring for any student with a "D" or "F" in a core academic subject, and list goes on and on.

If you asked our teachers about our school improvement plan, they would respond, "R-A-G-S to Riches"--Reading plus Attendance means better Grades and a Safe school." In other words, if we improved student literacy skills (Reading) and raised Attendance, student performance would improve (Grades) and discipline referrals and suspensions would go down (Safe). Here's the key. For almost a decade, our plan never changed. While we continually enhanced our strategies, our focus never changed. We never waivered.

The Secrets of High-Performing Schools

High-performing schools consistently do what other schools do not. No misplaced priorities here. No majoring in the minors either. High-performing schools have fewer priorities and they are obsessed with reaching their goals. At the recent NASSP School Showcase the presentations made by several schools made it crystal clear to me that schools serving large numbers of under-resourced students must have a student-focused obsession, and that obsession must relate to the specific needs of the population that the school serves.

The three schools all served under-resourced students. However, the three high schools varied in size, had very different demographics, and were located in states with very different economics and education policies. The context in which these schools operated was about as different as they could possibly be.

Although they were very different in appearance, the three schools had a lot in common. They each had a laser-like focus on student success that bordered on an obsession. In fact, these three schools were so obsessed with student success that they were willing to overcome any obstacle that got in their way.

Literacy: Brockton High School (MA) is a large (4,350) urban high school that has focused on raising the literacy--reading, writing, thinking, discussing--levels of ALL students, particularly its large ELL population. Principal, Susan Szachowicz, and a "handful of fellow teachers" organized a school wide campaign that brought reading and writing lessons into every class in all subjects, including gym. According to a New York Times article, Brockton's literacy-for-all success has defied the "small is better orthodoxy" proving that any school can beat the odds and raise student performance.

Attendance: The audience turned to each other with looks of disbelief when the staff of Arroyo High School (CA) posted their three-year attendance figures. Arroyo's average daily attendance was well over 96%. For a large, high-poverty, high minority, urban high school, 96% is phenomenal. However, I could see the enthusiasm abate as the staff spent about twenty minutes describing all the initiatives the school used to improve attendance. As I have emphasized over and over again, improving student attendance is all about hard work and will power, and the Arroyo staff have plenty of both. Arroyo's success formula is simple. Get the students to attend school every day and make sure that the students succeed.

Course Failure: The presentation began with a simple but very effective slide that pointed out that, over a three-year period, Barberton (OH) High School had reduced course failures from over 2,500 to 350. The staff at Barberton must have read Bob Balfanz's dropout research that points out that course failure is one of the best indicators of dropping out of school. Admittedly, a school could reduce failures by simply lowering standards. This was not the case at Barberton, where the focus was clear and no obstacle too big to overcome. The staff used small learning communities, flexible scheduling, a unique master schedule, student-led conferences, and an advisory program among other strategies to significantly improve student performance.

The Bottom Line for School Leaders

We simply cannot afford to waste time, money, and effort on programs and strategies that will not improve our schools. Schools cannot have fifteen priorities and do them well. The more we try to do, the more we spread out and dissipate our effort. Focus is power! The reality is that "we do more when we do less." Saying no is much harder than saying yes to new initiatives, but saying no is the right thing, the courageous thing to do. Resolve today to stop majoring in the minors! Become obsessed with your priorities.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:40 PM | Permalink

"School districts, because they want the money, are finding creative ways to meet the requirements of the law."--Gerald N. Tirozzi, Executive Director, NASSP

You have probably heard the saying, "Principals don't retire. They just lose their faculties." Apparently, in Minnesota, where "ousted principals quickly find new jobs," as well as in many other states, fired principals simply get new faculties.

Dollar Chase Leads to Musical Chairs

District leaders were shaken when they learned that, in order to qualify for school improvement grant (SIG) funds, they would have to replace the school's principal. Three of the four school reform models called for the replacement of the principal. The idea of firing principals when few replacements were available, particularly in rural and inner-city schools, was inconceivable. However, district leaders quickly found a loophole. Instead of firing principals, districts simply transferred them within the district. According to the AP, "of 19 Minnesota schools in 12 districts that were awarded more than $24 million found that only a handful of principals have left education administration. The AP interviewed nearly a dozen school leaders, reviewed school board minutes and media reports and sought out displaced principals by phone and through web searches."

More False Assumptions

I have written before about the false assumptions that underlie current "school reform" models. Note, that, in order to propose firing teachers and principals and closing struggling schools, one would have to believe all of the following false assumptions:

1. "Merit pay" for teachers will improve student performance. One does not have to look far into the research to discover that there is no basis for merit pay improving teaching.

2. Experienced principals and teachers are anxious to work in high-poverty, struggling schools. High-poverty schools serving high percentages of under-resourced students have the least experienced teachers and administrators and the highest turnover. The retention rates for principals at low-performing schools and schools with high concentrations of poor students are even worse. "Twenty percent of newly hired principals at secondary schools with a high proportion of low-income students leave after a year."

3. The best teachers want to teach the neediest students. We already know that high-poverty schools have fewer applicants and higher teacher turnover. However, within the typical school, a pecking order exists among the teaching staff. Because the most experienced teachers have "earned the right" to teach the most desirable courses, those teachers typically teach the best students in the smallest classes. Conversely, the newest teachers teach the neediest students in the largest classes. Principals often struggle to convince experienced teachers to teach those students most in need.

4. There is an abundant supply of experienced master teachers and skilled administrators. Top schools compete for top teachers and the struggling schools get the leftovers, if there are any. A friend once said to me, "It isn’t about school leadership. It is about hiring the best teachers. That’s the key to improving schools.

All you have to do is hire great teachers.” I turned to my friend and said,  “Who do you think recruits, interviews, hires, and trains your great teachers? Teaching is a profession, and professionals learn and grow from experience. Teachers don’t walk into schools with all the skills and knowledge that they will ever need. Teaching is learning. All new teachers must rely on mentors and advisors, most of whom are provided by the principal.” Some believe that anyone could teach. These "anyone can teach" proponents incorrectly believe that experience does not matter. Why else would they propose hiring teachers who have only five weeks of training. Of course, inexperienced teachers are good enough for other people's children, but they would never be good enough for the children of the school reform experts.

Rural schools have the same supply problem that urban schools have. "Rural superintendents have had trouble for years recruiting principals (and teachers), let alone for the toughest schools. Urban and suburban districts pay better. Rural areas often don't provide a second job for two-career couples. The rural lifestyle often doesn't appeal to urbanites. And with the housing market downturn, top candidates often don't want to sell at a loss and buy new homes in small towns."

5. Schools are struggling because teachers and administrators are incompetent. If that were the case, why, when they had the perfect excuse to get rid of them, would the same district hire back incompetent principals? First, these people are not incompetent. Second, the reasons for schools struggling are more about poverty, the surrounding communities, and the under-resourced families and students they serve than it is about incompetent teachers and principals.

Who can we trust?

The more I read and research, the less I trust that we are or will be told the truth. You may recall the controversy over the PISA scores, which, according to "so-called experts," indicated that our schools were failing because our students scored in the middle of the international pack. In fact, in "It's Poverty Not Stupid," I pointed out that, our low-poverty schools are the highest performing in world.

We all want our schools to improve. False assumptions and half-truths only serve to distract us from the real challenge that we and other developed nations face--raising the performance of under-resourced students so that they have a chance to lead a happy, productive, and prosperous life.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:25 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent article in the “Washington Post”, Jay Mathews lamented his inability to obtain accurate information concerning the number of discipline referrals that were being issued in various school districts.  He discovered that for public relations purposes many systems refused to divulge such data.  He asked Mel Riddile for advice on how to obtain the information.  The response was simple—“Ask the teachers. They are the ones who can tell you what the discipline is like in a school.”

It seems so simple and yet…

Obtaining accurate information does not have to be complicated.   To find out what it is like to be a baggage handler, ask a person who handles baggage not a passenger on the plane.  When seeking a good recipe for chili, query an individual who has successfully cooked the dish not the one who has tasted it.  If the goal is to understand how to be a successful high school principal, ask Mel Riddile whose resume clearly demonstrates he had effectively led a high school for more than a decade.  And to gauge the educational environment at a school, talk to the teachers.

But while this approach may appear to be both prudent and logical it is not always the method utilized in making educational decisions. Too many of the people who make critical choices concerning schools are using the same stonewalling tactics that frustrated Mr. Mathews.

Why not go to the source?

Why then, if accurate, firsthand information comes from the source, are teachers often the last group consulted?  One cannot help but hypothesize that a truthful, honest reaction may not be the desired one.  Solving problems can be difficult and time consuming.

Early in his tenure as a principal Mel began using monthly department chair meetings as a forum for gathering information.  The responses that he received may have created additional work for his staff but they helped to mold more effective educational philosophies in the building.    For example, the head of the science department once informed him that her department could not maximize student performance until attendance improved, facilities were updated (the laboratories had not been renovated since the school opened 37 years earlier) and the students could read at or above grade level.  To varying degrees the other chairs agreed with her assessment.  Plans were soon implemented that in time would directly address the three issues.

A geometry teacher lamented to me that she could not get her weak students to come after school for the thirty minutes of extra help that could make the difference between passing and failing.  Not surprisingly she had discovered that the lure of a better grade was not sufficient motivation to outweigh the other more attractive options available to students at the conclusion of a day. In many schools such concerns are directed back at the teacher with the implication that new strategies are needed to better motivate their students.  But this query became the focal point of a wide-ranging conversation that was dominated by a group of classroom teachers—the department chairs.  The result was a school-wide remediation program involving students, teachers and administrators in a coordinated and effective plan that that resulted in significant student improvement.

A different kind of leadership model

Mutually emboldened by these successes Mel and the staff began a collaborative effort to reconstruct many of the other existing policies within the school.  The ordering of faculty supplies was an excellent example of this approach.  For decades every teacher had been given a specific amount of money to spend in the spring on classroom needs for the upcoming school year.  The negative ramifications of this system were legendary.  Faced with a one-time only opportunity to order, teachers were determined to spend all of their allotted money and then hoard materials in the fear that they would run out.  The workroom grumbling was rampant throughout the year.  With strong teacher input, a new method was designed based on the tenets of trust and necessity.  Throughout the year teachers could order what they needed when they needed it.  The mechanism was to complete a purchase order and submit it to their department chair, who would then consolidate items when appropriate and pass it on to the finance officer.   The results were astounding.  The school spent less money overall; teachers openly shared supplies; and staff morale soared.  Instead of being doled out an “allowance” like an adolescent, teachers were treated like professionals and responded in a similar manner.   

The same collaborative model was used in a variety of other situations.  The in-service week prior to the beginning of the year had always been an emotional tug-of-war between the teaching and administrative staffs.  A survey was conducted which indicated that many of the teachers had to spend significant amounts of personal time on weekends and evenings to prepare for the first day of classes.  With this data in hand and a list of the district’s expectations for the week, a committee of teachers was convened that developed a plan that met the needs of all involved. 

The formula is straightforward

Teachers are the only staff members in the building that are in the front-lines of educating students day in and day out. Collecting their input is essential to truly resolving educational problems in a building.  It is an approach that may take a few more minutes at the outset, but the solutions generated are guaranteed to improve both teacher and administrator morale.  Why?  Only when problems are correctly identified by the people who are experiencing them, can they be eliminated.  Collaborative problem solving between administrators and teachers makes sense because it works.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:17 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Previously, Mel Riddile has asked whether there is a schism within high school faculties as a result of the continual emphasis on standardized testing.   He quotes a teacher who believes there is such a problem—the core teachers feel they are receiving an unfair level of scrutiny while the non-core believe they are being ignored. 

A perfect storm of discontent  

There is little doubt that the public spotlight is squarely on a school’s standardized test scores and the teachers whose students produce them.  Schools are accredited, ranked, and publically evaluated based on the results of a few tests in a limited number of subjects.  Virtually every conversation concerning teacher evaluation begins, and too often ends, with a desire to use student test scores as a major component. With the misguided encouragement of educational leaders some newspapers have ranked teachers based on their students’ results. Virtually every discussion of merit pay includes student scores as a primary consideration.

It is not surprising that this fixation on certain numbers has split teaching staffs into two separate camps.  The pressure on those who are responsible for tested classes is immense and often oppressive.  As it ratchets up during the year, these teachers become increasingly resentful of their colleagues who do not have to deal with similar issues.  Intensifying these sentiments is the irony that so much attention is being given to a group that represents less than one third of a typical high school staff.

These ingredients result in the great disconnect within the teaching community.  If test results are a must in evaluation and merit pay, what does that say about those who do not produce such scores?  Many teachers are forced to ask some tough questions.  Do policymakers mistakenly believe that all educators produce such scores?   Or worse, do they feel that creating an evaluation for those teachers is not a critical concern?  Likewise, should they be excluded from merit pay consideration?  Regardless of the reasons, the message they hear is clear—if you do not create standardized test data within your classroom, you are relegated to a lesser status.

This educational caste system gets worse.  It turns out that not all standardized tests scores are equal.  NCLB focuses on only the results of math and English exams.  The exclusion of science and social studies from this mandate places the teachers of those subjects in a difficult position. While they have the same curriculum pressures as math and English colleagues, their work is clearly not considered as important. The state of Virginia has affirmed this stance.  While a score of 400 on the end-of-course exams is required for a “pass”, the state established a special policy for students in the two non-NCLB curricula—if a student takes the exam twice and scores at least 375 on one of the attempts, they are eligible for a “locally verified credit”.  The teacher and school are still charged with a failing score but a student who has mastered less than 35% of the material is declared successful. 

No cures but some ways to help

While it is impossible for any school to totally alter the educational culture, there are steps that can be taken to lessen the chasm between core and non-core teachers.  As Dr. Riddile noted in his post, the implementation of a literacy program at his school was woven into the entire curriculum.  This approach was the result of both necessity and design.  In order to be successful, this initiative needed to be incorporated into all subjects rather than implemented by the English department alone.  By asking every discipline to embed literacy into all of their classroom activities, staff members had an equal stake in a critically important program.  Every meeting, email or memo in regards to this program was appropriate for the entire staff.

The school took a number of additional steps to mitigate this problem.  The goal of each of these concepts was simple—demonstrate to all teachers that every class was important.  These included:

The end of year testing schedule did not negatively impact non-tested classes. Many schools adopted testing schedules that would involve massive disruptions to all classes for an extended period of time.  Considering that more than two thirds of the classes in our building did not have end-of-course exams such an approach was deemed to be unacceptable.  Our test schedule was designed to ensure that every class would meet during the entire testing window.  The length of the periods would be altered to allow appropriate time for the exams but no class was lost.  Also since testing was done within the period the subject was taught, no students were pulled from other rooms to test. 

Discussions of SOL (state assessment) issues were limited to staff members who were directly affected.  At department chair meetings, the core department chairs would meet as a group after the conclusion of the topics pertaining to all subjects.  Likewise, faculty meetings were focused on topics of general interest.

Another possible solution

Authentic success in almost any endeavor is the result of an outstanding team effort.  Improvement in standardized test score is no exception.  Why not acknowledge this achievement as a school-wide effort?  Instead of awarding merit pay to individual teachers whose students exceed certain standards, a practice that can cause divisions within a staff, reward the entire school when the student body attains prescribed benchmarks.  Either give a bonus to all staff members or make the award in the form of extra funding for the school and its programs.   While such an approach would not end all friction among teachers, it would certainly be a good starting point.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:04 AM | Permalink

According to a report issued today by America's Promise Alliance, over the last decade, the nation's high schools have made significant progress in reducing dropouts and improving graduation rates. The report is part of "Grad Nation," which is part of a comprehensive, "10-year campaign to mobilize the nation as never before to reverse the dropout crisis and enable our children to be prepared for success in college, work and life."

Here are some of the highlights from Building A Grad Nation:

• The national graduation rate improved from 72% to 75%.
• 29 states demonstrated significant gains.
• Vermont and Wisconsin were the first states to reach a 90% graduation rate.
• Graduation rates for minority students--African American, Hispanic, Native American--improved the most.
• There are 261 fewer dropout factories (high schools with promoting power of 60% or less).
• 400,000 fewer students attend dropout factories.
• 25 of the 100 largest school districts had a 10% or greater increase in graduation rate.
• 12 states raised the compulsory school age.
• 47 states now have longitudinal data systems that will monitor students over time.
• 3 states have early warning systems.

Bottom Line

School leaders and teachers are to be congratulated for our efforts in turning the corner on the dropout crisis. However, we need to be aware that expectations are rising and the bar has been raised. The federal government now requires states to use the standard four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate that reflects the number of students who receive a diploma four years after they begin high school. I will have more to come on graduation rates and accountability as well as "early warning indicators."

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:52 AM | Permalink

I would like to hear from The Teacher Leader on this issue, but one veteran teacher believes that, instead of uniting teachers into communities of learners, the testing culture is actually dividing them into warring factions, pitting teachers in core courses against teachers in elective courses.

• "Tested teachers like me carry a grudge on their shoulders, rightfully convinced that we’re bearing the brunt of today’s accountability culture. 
• Teachers in untested subjects carry a grudge on their shoulders, rightfully convinced that their work is marginalized by a system that cares little for any kind of learning or expression that can’t be measured by a test.
• Faculties are divided, and divided faculties are rarely effective at ensuring student success."

The Bottom Line

Rather than act as though this schism does not exist, we, as school leaders, need to acknowledge that high stakes accountability has created a division of among the teaching staff.  We need to discuss this openly with our teachers.

The absence of a clear vision and a common focus can exacerbate these divisions. Our vision and focus must emphasize the roles that every staff member plays in raising student achievement.

As our school-wide literacy initiative evolved, each teacher came to understand that he or she played a key role in improving the literacy skills of each and every student. We knew that our English teachers simply could not do it alone. We emphasized the need for teachers to work together toward a common vision and focus--one that could be articulated by every teacher.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:36 PM | Permalink

"If you want me to cook the meal, let me shop for the groceries."--Bill Parcells

I was standing in a high school cafeteria the other day and the principal and I were talking with a teacher who was discussing the firing of the head football coach at a neighboring high school.

"I wonder if they are going to let the new coach pick his staff? How can they hold him accountable if they (school system) choose his coaches?"

I responded, "You just described what it is like to be a principal! You have little control over who is on your staff and you are held personally accountable for their performance, even if they do not want to work for you."

His expression immediately shifted to amazement. "I never thought about it that way."

I replied, "I thought about it every day!"

Note: Not only can't principals pick their staff, but they are often forced to take staff--teachers and administrators--from other schools. In my district, this happened every year to new principals. Before the new principal came on board on July 1, the school system would transfer under-performing teachers and administrators into the school and then tell the principals that they had to raise test scores or be replaced.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Blogger's Note: At a recent meeting of NASSP's Assistant Principal Task Force, Keith East presented each member of the Task Force with a wooden spoon. The spoon is handmade by Maxie Eades, an 85 year-old Master Craftswoman. A handmade wooden spoon is an odd gift. However, I had a sense that Keith had a story behind the spoon, and he did.

The idea of using a spoon as a metaphor for teaching and learning came to mind after two separate and distinct conversations with educators from the international community.

The first was a math teacher from the west African country of Cameroon. When pressed by his American public school administrative team as to why his students were not performing well, he replied, “I cannot feed students who do not wish to eat.”  His statement piqued my curiosity as to what we as educators could do to convince students that they were hungry even if they did not realize it. 

The second conversation was with a British educator.   When interviewed he was asked why was it that students in the United Kingdom were not subjected to standardized testing as often as students in the United States.  His response was, “We simply believe that when students are hungry that they should be fed, rather than weighed.”  While “weighing” students has its place, it should not overshadow the fact that education is really about feeding the hunger for knowledge and enlightenment.

We acknowledge that it is anathema to “spoon feed” information to students merely to have them spit it back to us.  That is not a true teaching or learning experience. However, is it not true that the ultimate goal of all teaching is for the student to take hold of the spoon and feed themselves?

R. Keith East is Associate Professor in the School of Education at Southern Wesleyan University.

                                                                                                Central, SC 29630

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:28 PM | Permalink

"They’ll have better attendance, wreck fewer cars and be more agreeable. All we have to do is let high school students sleep in."

You know a school or a school district is in trouble when the strategic plan follows the principles of the ABC School of School Management--Administration By Convenience.  One of the best indicators of an adult-focused environment, one that is practicing the principles of ABC, is when research is blatantly ignored in favor of current practice. Last year I wrote, "At a time when the focus is on firing principals and teachers, here is an easy way to raise student performance by as much as 10%. Your start time dramatically impacts academic achievement, behavior, motivation, and student engagement. I pointed to a student-developed video that continues to be true "conversation starter."

A reader wrote me saying, "When my family moved out of the DC area, we went from a 7:20 high school start time to an 8:20 high school start time. My older kids had a VERY hard time with 7:20; my son, in particular, had a body clock that just wouldn't let him sleep before midnight. Now, my younger kids handle the 8:20 high school start time with no trouble at all. That hour has made all the difference in the world. If school bus routes are truly running these start-time decisions, then flipping elementary and high school times is perfect. Of course, those parents who use elementary school as a convenient day care would have trouble with the switch--but those problems should not be allowed to override brain science."

Science says, "Let them sleep."

Today, so-called experts insist that schools use research-based strategies to teach students. Those same experts consciously turn their backs on research that would be inconvenient for them to implement.

The consensus in the field — informed by a large Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of American teens — is that adolescents need about nine hours and 15 minutes of sleep a night. Most get less. "Teens are caught in a tug of war between their biology and rules and schedules put in place by adults. Biology is losing."

In Nurtureshock: New Thinking About Children, author Po Bronson points out a number of key scientific facts relating to teens, sleep, and achievement:

• 60% of high schoolers report extreme daytime sleepiness.
• 25% of high school students report that their grades have dropped due to lack of sleep.
• Between 20% and 33% of high school students are "falling asleep in class at least once a week."
• "Children--from elementary school through high school--get an hour less sleep each night than they did thirty years ago.
• Loss on one hour of sleep has been proven to impact academic performance, emotional stability, obesity, and ADHD.
• "The performance gap caused by an hour's difference in sleep was bigger than the gap between a normal fourth-grader and a normal sixth-grader. Which is another way of saying that a slightly sleepy sixth-grader will perform like a mere fourth-grader. A loss of one hour of sleep is the equivalent to (the loss of) two years of cognitive maturation and development."
• Loss of sleep can "impair children's IQ as much as lead exposure."
• "Tired children cannot remember what they just learned."

Over the span of my career, I have heard many a colleague attribute bad student behavior to hormones. However, when it comes to actually applying science to address hormones, adult convenience again prevails. "A Day in the Life of a Sleepy Student," points out that "hormones play a role. Our brains produce the hormone melatonin as they prepare to sleep. Synthetic forms are sold over the counter as a sleep aid. (Mary) Carskadon found that melatonin levels in adolescents don’t rise until about 10:30 p.m. Sending your teen to bed at 10 is likely to lead to tossing and turning but not much sleep until the body agrees it is time. If a child who can’t sleep until 11 p.m. needs to rise at 6 a.m. to catch a bus, that provides just seven hours of sleep — two hours less than the average adolescent needs."

Minneapolis, which moved high school start times from 7:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. during the 1997-98 school year is a rich source of data on the difference schedules make in teen health and achievement. Scientists at the University of Minnesota did extensive research on the effects and found the following:

• Students report fewer signs of depression than peers with earlier start times. Attendance improved.
• Student transfers dropped.
• Kyla Wahlstrom of the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota in an analysis of the schedule change. “Having a later start for the first hour of class appears to enable more students to not oversleep and to arrive at school on time.”
• Academic performance improved.
• Participation in sports and activities remained the same.
• Principals reported fewer discipline issues.
• A reduction in the number of students seeking help with relationship problems
• Parents reported that students were easier to live with.
• Students did not stay up later at night. 10:45 was the typical reported bed time.
• Most slept an additional hour each night.

According to Colleen Shaddox’s story titled “Delaying School Start Times Causes Alarm” , while some schools have acknowledged the science and moved back high school start times, the reason many more have not "lies in a mix of logistics and politics.

The Bottom Line

I spent my first 28 years in education with a 7:20 start time. For my last two years I moved to a school that had an 8:30 start time. I can personally attest to the fact that one hour made a huge difference in the mood of the students and staff. They were awake! If I had the choice, I would never go back to the earlier start time. The argument that I most often hear in support of the early start time is sports and activities. As the Minneapolis study found, student participation in sports and activities was not adversely affected by the later start time. In fact, in my last year, our boys' basketball team won the state championship.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A few years back, I walked into our stadium just in time to see a huge banner unfurled revealing our school's new logo--the Oakland Raider. The problem was that we already had a logo and it wasn't the Oakland's pirate. We also had invested years of effort building our brand.

As it turns out, our football coach had unilaterally decided that it was time for a change. Never mind that we had no permission to use the Raiders' logo. To make a long story short, we didn't change our logo and all it cost us was the price of the banner. However, today we have video posted everywhere on the Internet which may make "borrowing" or copying logos a much more expensive proposition.

The Washington Post reports  "high schools have for years copied the logos of big-time universities and professional teams, or turned to them for inspiration. But as those insignias have become more valuable, many campuses have become more vigilant in protecting them."

In order to avoid the embarrassment of receiving a cease-and-desist letter some high schools have voluntarily contacted the universities and joined a program that allows them to borrow a college logo without fear of trademark infringement by paying a $1 fee every two years.

Some "universities have been less willing to allow any use of their insignias. Wisconsin, Florida and Florida State, for example, have cracked down heavily in recent years on the borrowing of their logos, even if high schools have changed the colors."

The University of Wisconsin has asked nearly 40 schools in over two dozen states to stop using its logo and phase out its use on Web sites, uniforms and elsewhere. Since last fall, the University of Florida has asked two high schools in the state and at least one school in Mississippi to stop using the Gators logo and phase out its uses on uniforms and gym floors.

Increased exposure provided by the Internet and the "value of these trademarks is so high that these licenses and universities are making money from their marks."

The Bottom Line

School leaders would be wise to proactively look into the genesis of their school logo. Otherwise, it could turn out to be both embarrassing and expensive.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:52 PM | Permalink

Poll after poll continues to show that people believe that their own schools are good and that other peoples’ schools aren’t doing as well. According to Education Daily, Rick Johnson of Lake Research told a meeting of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) that 79% of likely voters find it “extremely or very concerning” that high school dropouts cost the nation over $319 billion annually.

Here are some additional findings of interest to high school leaders along with my comments:

• 73% believe that high school improvement is an urgent need. High schools are important. So, lets fund them at the same level that we fund elementary and post-secondary education.
• 69% say that high school graduates are not career-ready. In the 21^st century, a high school diploma is not a terminal degree. We need to prepare all students for post-secondary education and training.
• 27% rate the nation’s schools A or B. 21% rate the nation’s schools D or F. 42% give the nation’s schools a C. In a knowledge economy, the nation with the high level of education will have the highest standard of living. We have work to do.
• 37% of the respondents gave high schools in their state an A or B. 46% gave local public schools and A or B. The closer that community members are to your school, the more positively they rate your school. I learned this in a community relations course more than 30 years ago, and it is as true today as it was then.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:56 PM | Permalink

“Districts have to treat principals like they expect them to lead.”—The District Leadership Challenge

It’s October and it is National Principal’s Month. Congratulations, fellow principals! However, I’m confused. Are we actually honoring principals at the same time that the national plan for school reform is to fire principals first and fire principals often? I have heard stories of the preemptive firing of principals just in case their school would be placed on a state “under-performing” list.

In order to accept the authenticity of the current school reform blueprint, which, in every scenario, calls for the replacement of the principal, one must believe that principals act autonomously and that school districts have very little say-so regarding what goes on in a school. In reality, the opposite is closer to the truth. Many school districts are small and lack capacity, and, too often, principals are on their own in their efforts to turn around their schools. A recently released Wallace Foundation study indicates that “collective leadership”— “total amount of influence attributable to all the participants in a given educational system: teachers, parents, principals, district office staff, and community members”—is the key to higher student achievement and school improvement.

Teachers need and want supportive leadership to succeed in the classroom. Likewise, principals desperately need the full and active support of their district leadership in order to improve their schools.

As an SREB report on district-school alignment points out that “A central reason for the unending graduation and preparation problems is the failure of many public school districts to systematically provide the working conditions that well-trained principals need to succeed. Districts have to treat principals like they expect them to lead.”

Principals are being widely criticized for not firing bad teachers, but principals don’t control key personnel functions. The authority to hire and fire rests solely with the superintendent and the school board. Dismissing any staff member demands an often-lengthy due process procedure that some are reluctant to go through except in the most urgent cases. The dismissal process is so expensive and time consuming that some districts take the easy way out and move around weaker teachers. Principals do not have the authority to reassign teachers to other schools.

Principals who bring forward too many dismissal cases are seen as problematic. The same assistant superintendent who complimented me privately for dealing with poor performance commented in front of two school board members that I was sometimes “tough.” I responded, “You sent them to me because you knew that I would address their needs. You can’t come back to me later and say that I am tough.”

The Rubber Room

Almost eleven years ago, our high school was labeled a “failing high school” by our superintendent in a Washington Post article. I remember being compelled to sit in a room in the central office every Friday afternoon for several months with three other “failing principals.” This was our district’s version of the “principals’ rubber room.” The purpose of these meetings was for us “failing principals” to come up with a plan to turn around our under-performing schools. To this day, I don’t understand why our district would ask “failing principals” like us to come up with the solution to school improvement. That would be like a teacher asking her lowest performing students to advise the rest of the class on the best strategies for studying for tests.

On one memorable occasion, one assistant superintendent became so frustrated that she pounded her fist on the table and said, “You (principals) have to bring up your test scores.” Not knowing how to respond to this tirade, we just sat silently and stared at each other in disbelief. Finally, I spoke up. “Tell us what you want us to do and we will do it.” The assistant superintendent leaned forward, squinted her eyes and said, “That’s what we hired you to do, and, if you can’t, we’ll find somebody who can.”

Even though that outburst took place over a decade ago, incidents like that are occurring with increased frequency today. So-called experts, many who have never worked in a school, are demanding that principals improve their schools or face dismissal. ‘We have no idea how to change the culture of a school, but we’re going to fire you if you don’t.’ ‘We’re not going to train you. We’re not going to support you. We’re just going to threaten you and then fire you.’

If they have what it takes

Less than a year ago, I sat in meeting discussing one state’s strategy to turn around low-performing schools. A superintendent from a large district in the state was asked to speak to the group about his strategy to reform his district. His plan was simple and honest. “I hire principals and put them in the schools. If they have what it takes, they stay. If they don’t have what it takes, I find someone else.” By his own admission, this superintendent had no idea what his principals needed in the way of skills or training. In fact, he didn’t have the time to find out. He needed results now! He was simply going to hire and fire until he found the right person.

You are a principal?

When people asked me what I did for a living and I told them that I was a high school principal, they looked at me as though I had just landed from Mars. To most people, being in the mere presence of large groups of teenagers is intimidating. Most parents will readily admit that have their hands full dealing with their own teenagers let alone trying to work with hundreds or even thousands of other peoples’ kids.

We can’t wait for Superman

When I read the resolution honoring principals, I wonder how anyone could actually be a successful principal. In addition to a myriad of responsibilities, principals are being asked to do something that no one before us has ever done in any country--raise the achievement of all students, particularly poor and disadvantaged students, to high levels. And they are being asked to raise student performance by people who have never done it themselves and who, sad to say, have no intention of asking those who actually have.

An assistant superintendent for whom I have much respect once told me, “I was a good principal, but I never raised test scores. You are going to have to and I don’t know how you are going to do it.” Her remarks were honest and supportive, and I appreciated the fact that she was willing to partner with me to find a way to help our school succeed.

More than any other time in memory, principals are under attack, and so are our teachers. We are not the enemy! Threats of punishment and dismissal are not what principals or teachers need to help us improve schools. Instead of attracting us to work in our neediest schools, current policies are driving us away. What we need is training, support, and encouragement.

Our mission is critical to the future of our country and to the future of each of our students. We have a daunting but not impossible task. Success demands that we all work together in a collaborative partnership to improve every school. Why don’t we all admit that we don’t have all the answers and start working together to find them?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:51 AM | Permalink

First, I will give you the bad news boys and girls. Superman and Santa Claus are not coming, at least not to public education any time soon.

Now here is the good news. Everyone is talking about the importance of education. New York Times op-ed columnist, Gail Collins, put it best when she wrote, “Right now, the public is engaged. The best charter schools are laboratories for new ideas. But the regular public schools are where American education has to be saved. We can do better. Superman hasn’t arrived. But we may be ready to fly.”

The Bottom Line

It is up to us to be the hope that our students need. From a high school perspective, we are the end of the line. No one stands behind us to help our students. Without the literacy and math skills needed to succeed in postsecondary education and training, our students will be relegated to a lifetime of marginal employment and second-class citizenship. We are the last and best hope that our students have to lead a better life.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

More than anything else, including higher pay (45%), 40,000 teachers surveyed reported that they want supportive leadership (68%). The question is, what is supportive leadership? Customer satisfaction is an important indicator of quality service, corporations put a lot of time, effort, and money into surveys that ask their customers “How did we do?” So, why not ask teachers who have worked with school leaders about their views on supportive leadership?

In Simply the Best, The Teacher Leader does just that. A 40-year classroom veteran and teacher-leader should be a good judge of supportive leadership. In his profile of Barbara Douds, The Teacher Leader identifies a number of Barbara’s key leadership qualities including:

“A listener, a learner, and active participant” – “She would talk with each chair, listen to their concerns and goals, and acquired the information necessary to be fluent in the most pressing issues of that subject area.  She would then work with the chairs to formulate the best approaches for the guidance staff to assist in implementing their programs.” Teachers want collaboration. They want to share. They want a partnership. Teachers don’t want leaders who ‘simply follow dictates or who ask no question, seek no answers and most of all give no advice.’

Trust and Respect – The Teacher Leader points to one of Michael Fullan’s Six Secrets of Change, “transparency” of data, as a key element in gaining the trust of the staff. Everyone had the same numbers and they knew that the numbers were correct. In addition, he points to Barbara being “viewed by all as fair and honest” as keys to her ability to earn trust and respect.

No surprises! – Supportive leadership (collaboration) is not asking teachers what they want and then doing what is convenient—Administration By Convenience (ABCs). In a true partnership, each party consults the other when making key decisions.

Her attention to detail and “her work ethic was contagious.”

Emotionally supportive – No matter what occurred, “her demeanor was always calm and her mood was always even.” Students need a low-threat classroom to learn. Teachers must know that, no matter what, it is never personal.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:37 AM | Permalink

“We must build a culture nationally where great educators … choose to work with the children and communities who need the most help.”—Arne Duncan

National Public Radio decided to get into the back-to-school spirit, by asking economists about the stories they tell to kick off their college classes.

Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University (and Marginal Revolution) “gets right to the heart of economics.”

You may recall that Australia began as a penal colony. In the 1700s, the British government paid sea captains to take felons to Australia. According to Tabarrok, things didn’t go so well—almost a third of the prisoners died on one voyage and the others were in very poor condition when they arrived in Australia. The conditions were unacceptable and public outrage ensued. The government passed rules, required doctors on board ship, improved food quality, increased inspections, raised the captains salaries, and even tried to appeal “for humanity’s sake,” but nothing worked.

“Finally, an economist (who else?) had a new idea. Instead of paying for each prisoner that walked on the ship in Great Britain, the government should only pay for each prisoner that walked off the ship in Australia. And in fact, this was the suggestion, which in 1793 was adopted and implemented. And immediately, the survival rate shot up to 99%. Here is the first, fundamental lesson of economics: Incentives matter. Before the captains were paid to keep the convicts alive, they had different incentives — "like keep food from the prisoners, and then sell the food in Australia," Tabarrok says. Reward the captains for keeping the passengers alive, and — voila! — they arrive alive. A good social order, Tabarrok tells his class, aligns self-interest with social interest.”

The Right Incentives

Incentives do matter, but, as we learned in the case of the sea captains, we need to make certain that we are rewarding the right behaviors-pay for prisoners walking off the ship not on to the ship. When it comes to low-performing schools, how do we align the interests of experienced teachers and principals with the social interest of improving the achievement of our neediest students?

Rewarding teachers primarily for raising student test scores will have the effect of driving teachers and principals to schools and students with whom they have the best chance of success—advantaged, resourced, middle class, suburban schools—and away from disadvantaged, under-resourced, poor, working class, urban and rural schools.

Even if we do succeed in attracting the best teachers to work in those neediest schools, the already existing resistance to teaching the weakest students, to accepting new, under-performing transfer students, and to teaming in inclusion classes, will multiply exponentially. I predict that routine schedule changes will escalate into full-blown grievances. Principals will be forced to prove that they did not discriminate against a teacher when they placed a new student in that teacher’s class in the middle of October. I better not forget to mention the inevitability of parents shopping for teachers based upon previous student test scores and the chaos that is certain to ensue.

In a Culture of Success, I emphasized that we need to change the culture, which means creating incentives for teachers and principals to work in under-resourced schools including up-front financial incentives, a promise of small class sizes, upgraded facilities with the latest technology, rewards for school-wide performance, and award and recognition programs that recognize teachers and school leaders.

Next: Merit Pay: Are we rewarding the right behaviors?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:40 PM | Permalink

Thirty-one year old, Bobby Cramer, won his big league debut by pitching the Oakland Athletics over the Kansas City Royals 3-1. The ESPN SportsCenter hosts jumped all over this story because Cramer is a former math teacher. They showed math equations of two of his pitches using distance and time to calculate the speed of the pitch, which was an effective real-world math application.

Sadly, the anchors managed to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory. They simply could not leave well enough alone. Even though well-intentioned, they managed to completely undo the good they were doing for math teachers around the country.

In between their calculations the SportsCenter anchors made comments like “I was in remedial math” implying that theses simple equations were above their ability. One implied that it was a good thing that he had good writing skills, because high-level math like that would have kept him from graduating from college.

Several years ago, I was appearing on a PBS program with then Assistant Secretary of Education, Henry L. Johnson. The program was focused on how to encourage more students to take more math and science courses. At the wrap-up, the moderator asked me if I could make one recommendation to parents what would it be? I looked at the camera and said, “Never tell your child that you were good or bad at math and science! Anyone can be good at math and science if they are willing to work hard enough. Parents ruin their child’s math and science self-esteem by too often telling them that they were bad at math.”

According to Carol Dweck’s must read book for school leaders and parents, Mindset, what I had learned from years of practice, as a school leader, was spot on. Telling students that they are good or bad at a particular subject or skill is the wrong message because it ruins motivation. The message that our students need to hear is that work and effort create ability. “Your success or failure is the result of work, effort and deliberate practice.”

The message that the SportsCenter folks should have conveyed was that ‘Bobby Cramer’s years of hard work and practice paid off. He made it to the show, and in his first start, he beat the Kansas City Royals 3-1.’

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:35 AM | Permalink

Mention accountability and most principals think about state assessments and “adequate yearly progress.” However, when I think of accountability, I think of a lot more than state tests, I think about real world assessments. Today, September 11, is the anniversary of 911, and I couldn’t help but think how our school was put to a severe, real world test that day. It was one of those events in life when the unexpected occurs for which we could not prepare and which tested us to our core.

Looking back over the years, it seems that our school faced an inordinate number of external events that ultimately tested our mindset, values, beliefs, and the strength of our relationships. If we had done our job and walked the talk, we would come through each with shining colors. If we hadn’t, our weaknesses would be exposed.

We had so many things happen that, one year, one side of our annual faculty t-shirt told the story of how “WE SURVIVED” twelve events which included Columbine, 911, the Beltway Sniper, two wars, one hurricane, and a “snowmageddon.” Although these events were all much different, they all tested our culture, our commitment, our focus, and most importantly, our relationships with our students and our relationships with our colleagues.

September 11, 2001 holds a special place in my memory. We can all remember where we were and what we were doing on that fateful day. I can remember it as though it were yesterday.

We were in our weekly staff meeting and our SRO rushed in and told us to turn on the television, which we did just in time to see the second plane fly into the Twin Towers live. This was particularly disconcerting to me because I had stayed in the Vista Hotel on a number of occasions, and that summer, our family had visited New York, bought theater tickets on the ground floor of the Towers, and rode to the top of the Towers.

The worst part of the day for me was the rumors and what we didn’t know. There were so many conflicting reports on the television that we decided to turn it off and have our librarian compile a report consisting only of what we did know. Our police department gave us a report that a nearby apartment building had been bombed and that cars were exploding on Route 7, which was only a block from our school. All these reports later turned out to be false. Our school was so close to the Pentagon that the smoke from the crash floated over the school until late in the day.

I am not going to go into all the details of the day, except to say that our students and our staff passed the test with flying colors. Our students trusted us and we respected them. They always felt safe and secure in our building and we all felt like we were part of the same team.

Personalization was always a priority for our staff and a long-standing strength of our school. We had a number of former Peace Corps volunteers teaching in our school, which helped us establish caring relationships with our diverse student body, which had students from eighty-eight countries speaking sixty-six different languages. In fact, we were so diverse that, in an article that was published that month, National Geographic Magazine had called our school “the most diverse high school in America.”

Many parents came to our school that day with the intent of taking their child home. However, when they saw how calm everything was at our school they decided to allow them to remain. I remember one of our School Board members, who was sobbing almost uncontrollably in the cafeteria, being told by her daughter “Go home, mom. Everything is okay here.”

The Ultimate Test

We had no way of knowing it that day, but the real test of our relationships and our school culture would come in the weeks and months that followed 911. Our diverse student body included a large Muslim population, which made up approximately one-sixth of the school. Reporters and journalists flocked to our school all wanting to know how the kids were getting along. Were there any incidents?

In early November, four of our Muslim students were interviewed on a morning NPR broadcast. It didn’t take long for the interviewer to ask the students if they had been harassed or if there were any incidents at school. Each of the students indicated that school had gone on normally, that they always felt safe at school, and that, to their knowledge, there had been no incidents.

The Bottom Line

Schools are about a lot more than bricks and mortar or tests and test scores. Schools are about people and their relationships. We were tested many times by outside events that we could never have anticipated. Fortunately, our entire staff made daily deposits into our “emotional bank account” so that, when the unexpected occurred, we had a large reserve of goodwill to draw from. In retrospect, these unforeseen events made us a better school and they brought us closer to each other.

By the way, I mentioned one side of our faculty t-shirt told how “WE SURVIVED.” On the other side of the shirt was the following: “WE THRIVED! J.E.B. Stuart High School, A Breakthrough School.”

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:28 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

This somewhat shocking question was asked in a recent story in The Christian Science Monitor.  Their article tells of a growing number of school districts located in cities including Detroit, Denver, Minneapolis and Boston where schools are being created without principals.  In this new format teachers are making the decisions on everything from curriculum coverage to cafeteria schedules.  While each city has a different program it appears they are being formed in response to a common problem—teachers believe that they are being held more and more accountable for student achievement while having little or no control over how their schools address the issues that impact classroom success.  According to the article teacher response to this scrutiny is basically, “Fine. Hold us accountable. But let us do it our way."  The writer, Stacy Teicher Khadaroo continues:

“While each teacher-led school is unique, the shared decision-making is what defines them. The teachers' participation tends to create a culture quite different from that in a traditional principal-led school: Teachers can't hide behind the classroom door or complain about policies, because they have to come up with solutions.”

While I applaud any approach in which teacher input is both solicited and implemented I am concerned about the wisdom of removing administrative teams designed to make decisions that are neither appropriate nor productive for teachers to make.  Time is a scarce commodity for teachers.  And using it to address such issues as school-wide student discipline, truancy, transportation, lunches, building cleanliness or budgets appears antithetical to the stated goals of these innovative, teacher-led institutions.  What I continue to fervently support, however, are schools where the teaching staff is deeply involved in the decisions that most affect them and their students.

Control or Cooperation

Mel Riddile has written on numerous occasions that for a school to succeed, principals need to be willing to trade some of their control for the cooperation of their staff. Based on my experiences as a department chair for twenty-six years and as a teacher for forty, I agree wholeheartedly.  I worked for a decade in a situation where it was clear that the opinions of teachers were considered and utilized; the department chairs had wide-ranging influence on the curriculum, hiring and the master schedule; and major policy issues were discussed at every level before implementation.  I have also worked in an environment where critical decisions were made behind closed doors and announced without discussion.  Department chairs were specifically told that their major responsibility was simply to carry out the policies of the administrative team.  I feel that the assertion by Ms. Khadaroo—if you want a school where the teachers are willing to be held accountable they must be an integral component in the overall process—is accurate. 

A Successful School with a Principal

Rather than getting rid of the principal, why not attempt to blend both worlds with certain specific arrangements which would ensure teachers accepting accountability and a hierarchy of leadership that would make the school function appropriately?  Here would be my picks for five areas of teacher influence:

Create a strong mid-management presence.  Give department chairs significant authority in the areas of hiring, scheduling, assigning rooms and generating academic policies.  The input of this group should be solicited and utilized on a regular basis.

Choose department chairs in a professional manner.  Schools should have clear and consistent criteria for selecting individuals to be department chairs.  In too many cases these selections are made based purely on seniority, favoritism or, worst case scenario, by whoever is willing to volunteer.  If the job is to be taken seriously, the appointment process must be equally serious.

Create teacher leaders throughout the building.  On every hall in any school there are teachers who have great ideas which could significantly improve academic success.  These views could have a profound effect both in the classrooms and throughout the curriculum.  Administrative leaders should encourage department chairs to solicit input from their members on all academic topics and should also approach teachers directly to request their thoughts and place them in leadership positions on influential committees.

Put classroom teachers into the evaluation process.  During my forty years of teaching math I was never evaluated by an administrator who had taught the subject.  Input from a fellow math teacher would have been welcomed and would have provided a unique viewpoint as would the thoughts of someone from a different department.  Evaluations need to be a collaborative process that includes individuals from the classroom.  Placing teachers into this process would provide an opportunity to make a significant impact on the improvement of both the teachers being observed and the ones making the observations.

Give teachers a voice in administrator evaluations.  In this new “flat-school” approach to education, teachers should have both informal and formal input in the assessment of the administrative staff.  Assistant principals should meet on a regular basis with teachers to have open and honest conversations about the positive and negative impact of their work.  In such a forum comments like “I like the way you handle student discipline for classroom misbehavior but your punishments for being late to classes appear to be inconsistent”, “If you would drop into our classes on an informal but somewhat regular basis I think it would send an excellent message to the students” or “I feel like you are not supportive enough of the teachers when working with your students” could result in constructive outcomes and interesting conversations.  On a more formal basis, teacher participation should be solicited and incorporated into the performance evaluation of all members of the administrative team.  Both of these avenues for frank and sincere dialogue between these two parts of the academic team could provide a significant improvement in morale and a greater sense of teamwork. 

Save the principals!

Principals and administrators should, in an ideal world, facilitate the job of the teachers.  If educating all children at the highest academic levels is our goal, then teachers need all of the help they can get.  They do not need more work or an enhanced job description.  If administrators are allowed to do their job of creating a positive learning environment then teachers can spend more of their time educating, inspiring, and enlightening their students

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:48 PM | Permalink

Principals take note. There is a bull’s eye on your back!

The policy wonks new mantra is “We’ve got to do something. We must improve schools.” So, what do we do? Let’s find a convenient target of opportunity and strike. Then, at least we can say we did something. So, what is the easiest target? Not the teachers. There are too many teachers, and besides, everyone likes teachers. Let’s replace the principal. After all, when things aren’t going well at a school, the principal should be held responsible. For more than a decade, the school’s report card has been the principal’s report card. As one of my mentors told me years ago, “You (the principal) can delegate responsibility, but never accountability.

For someone to believe that the current school reform models are viable ways to improve schools, they would have to believe that the principal acts autonomously, independent of the school district. In fact, this could not be farther from the truth.

Take for instance the situation in Columbus, Ohio. For the first week of school, student transportation was a nightmare. Buses, when they did arrive, were as much as one to two hours late. The author, writing on the Flypaper blog, thought that was “appalling.” “In six days of school, only four of the buses that service CCA (Columbus Collegiate Academy) have been on time. School starts at 7:50 a.m., and First Student buses have dropped kids off as many as two hours late. You can imagine the impact this has on lost instructional time (not to mention the level of frustration experienced by parents, some of whom are new to the school).”

Guess who took the brunt of the teacher, parent, and student frustration--the principal, of course.

I learned very early as a principal that, as far as the students, parents, and teachers were concerned, I, the principal, was the school system. When the system doesn’t work, it is the principal who hears about it. When the buses were late, the lunches were cold, the books weren’t delivered, or when the AC didn’t work, it was the principal’s fault and responsibility to correct it.

I have better example than the Columbus bus fiasco. Six days is nothing. Try six weeks. A while back as the new principal, the district hit me with, what I refer to today as the “trifecta”—a three-part disaster. Yes, this was a set up, but it wasn’t intentional. At least, most of it wasn’t.

I was the new principal at the school in which the former principal had served for the last twenty-two years. I wanted to get off to a good start and make a good impression. Anyone who has ever worked in a school knows that everything is a team effort including transportation, food services, human resources, and facilities. If one part of the team drops the ball, the school suffers and the principal looks bad. If the school does well, it is because it has great teachers. If the school does poorly, it is because the principal is not getting the job done.

Trifecta: Part 1: Transportation

For the first six weeks of school, all buses were forty-five minutes to one hour late every day. Irate parents tied up the phone lines every morning. The police were upset because they couldn’t plan for traffic control. Teachers didn’t know when the buses arrived, so they had no idea when to start classes. Most days, we were getting ready to serve lunch before the students had even arrived. I spent the entire day apologizing publicly and complaining privately. I have never felt so helpless.

Trifecta: Part 2: Scheduling

Before I arrived in mid-July, I was assured by district staff that the master schedule would be completed. Well, it was completed except that 20% of the students had incomplete schedules. It seems that someone in central office had the bright idea to experiment with the schedule by placing another variable in the equation--all students would be grouped in clusters in which they would have the same core teachers. This resulted in numerous conflicts. However, instead of taking out the variable and running the schedule again, they decided to close it out and require the school to hand schedule 20% of the students. Anyone who has ever worked on a high school master schedule knows that this would amount to requiring the school to hand schedule all 2,600 students.

Trifecta: Part 3: Personnel

A district official warned me in advance on more than one occasion, that I would most likely have a certain individual sabotage the opening, and sure enough, it happened. While I am not going to go into detail here, suffice it to say that a lot of things went wrong like the box of welcome to school letters later found in a closet. In addition, the letter for the antique school marquee mysteriously disappeared. You get the drift. Instead of taking care of the problem that they knew for certain would occur, the central office let it happen.

Sometimes you can look back on situations like this and laugh. I regret that, to this day, I get sick to the stomach just thinking about the stress and tension I was under. I cannot imagine what would have happened if I were new to the principalship and had no reputation to fall back on.

Reality Check

Here is a notice to all of the education experts who have never worked in a school, and whose only experience is that of having been a student. Principals don’t function autonomously. I had no control over the buses, personnel decisions, or the student scheduling process that year. As a new principal to that school, forces that were beyond my control seriously undermined my efforts. How could I make a case for high expectations and bell-to-bell instruction, when the buses were late every day?

Principals don’t make policy. They carry out policy. Principals depend on their districts to provide the resources and support they need.

Principals should be held accountable, but so should the school districts. Before principals are replaced under the new federal requirements, school districts should be required to supply proof that they provided resources and support to the principal and the school. Give principals the autonomy to hire teachers and administrators. Give them control over their budget. Then hold them accountable.

If individual teachers are to be held accountable for student test scores, the students should be held accountable. In too many states, students are “christmas-treeing” tests because they are not accountable for their performance.

In a functional system, everyone in the system is accountable and everyone takes ownership of the outcomes. Only a dysfunctional system would single out certain, specific individuals for accountability purposes.

The reality is that principals have no tenure. They serve at the pleasure of the superintendent and the school board. Principals can and frequently are replaced on a whim. Just as in professional sports, it is much easier to replace the coach than all the players.

The problem isn’t that we need to get rid of principals. The problem is that we need to hold on to them. Principal turnover, particularly in under-resourced, high-poverty schools is astronomical. Working in an under-resourced school demands a high level of “moral purpose”, but in today’s slash-and-burn climate it is a career-killer. Principals are leaving under-resourced schools, there very schools where they are needed the most, in droves because their pleas for help and resources fall on deaf ears.

Instead of scapegoating principals, we need to train them and we need to give them the resources, equipment, and support they need to do their jobs. Then and only then can we rightfully hold them accountable.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:33 PM | Permalink

Sarah Garland wonders out loud why a disproportionate number of high schools are involved in the turnaround grant program. She is asking the right questions, but the answers she received don’t tell the whole story. These grants may, in fact, be a case of too little too late. I thought that it might help to offer a high school principal’s perspective.

Every Grade

High schools should not be singled out for any special treatment and neither should middle or elementary schools. Every grade in school is just as important as any other. What year would you advise your own child to take off? Most likely you would want every year of schooling to be a quality experience. Everyone must come to accept the fact that every minute counts with every student. I used to believe that low-performing ninth graders had three more years to catch up. However, I learned through practice, now supported by research that those students would most likely drop out. The reality is that marginal middle school students fail in high school. Students do not suddenly lose their math or literacy skills when they walk through the doors of a high school, nor can they suddenly make up a three-year deficit after entering high school. If, as a high school principal, I were given a choice between receiving a federal turnaround grant or having students arrive at my school on-target for post-secondary education, I would not hesitate to choose the latter. I learned the hard way that waiting for students to fall behind and then spending large amounts of money to catch them up is a high-risk strategy doomed to fail.

The Funding Gap

While most would agree that every year in school is important, that is not how federal funding has flowed. In fact, when it comes to funding, the federal recording has been stuck on elementary schools for years. Policy makers have erroneously believed that a strong beginning in the early grades would carry students to success in later years. That may work for advantaged middle class students, but for under-resourced students this plan has been a disaster. In literacy for example, students who do not come from language enriched home environments need direct, explicit literacy instruction each and every year or they will not progress. To the shock and dismay of our elementary principals and teachers, our school had a significant number of students reading at grade level at the end of the third grade who were two to three years behind by grade nine.

Not ready for prime time

I once watched an assistant superintendent summarily promote a whole stack of unsuccessful students because they had simply been retained too many times. Many overage and under-credited students arrive at high school because they were “too tall to retain” any longer. They arrive with a history of low achievement, unable to read their textbook, and lacking basic computational skills. Despite that fact that only 20% of eighth graders are on target to be college-, career-, and workplace-ready, high schools are under extreme pressure to prepare students for postsecondary success.

Graduation and Dropouts

High schools are the only schools held to measures of accountability that include graduation rate, dropout rate, end-of-course exams and barrier tests. The fact is that students begin dropping out long before they reach high school.

Range of Learners

Diverse high schools with significant numbers of second-language learners like ours had students with skill levels that ranged from kindergarten through the second year of college. Our elementary principals were surprised to see that our library contained many of the same books as their own.

Size and Complexity

As we go higher in the grades the complexity of the course content and the curriculum increases dramatically. Today’s high school curriculum is extremely complex. Many high schools offer twenty or more AP or IB courses along with dual enrollment classes, CTE programs, and work-study programs. In addition they offer host of standard level courses including electives in the fine and performing arts. High schools tend to be larger because it is impossible to offer the variety of offerings in a smaller school.

Systemic Failure

My last superintendent didn’t particularly like it when I said “Whatever happens in the school system good or bad manifests itself at the high school level.” High schools are at the end of the assembly line. Whatever was or was not corrected along the way surfaces at the high school level. A number of experts have come to believe that weak schools are a result of dysfunctional district leadership and the failure to construct a properly aligned K-12 instructional program. Strong district leadership is a prerequisite to individual school success.

Our current national strategy is to stand at the end of the assembly line and inspect for defects. We are not yet about building quality into the entire K-12 process. We are still stuck in trying to inspect for quality, and that will not render the kind of results that we are looking for. Helping each and every student acquire the solid math and literacy skills they need in order to succeed in every content area is a K-12 issue and cannot be accomplished by remediating large numbers of students who were passed through the grades with glaring skill deficiencies and allowed to languish in failure and mediocrity.

It is true that the work of turning around elementary and middle schools is “potentially easier.” However, we have a moral and ethical responsibility to all students. We cannot afford to ignore millions of high school students simply because they are not the easiest to work with.

Finally, we do know how to turn around high schools. There is now an extensive body of evidence that support to successful turnaround efforts. However, high school turnaround is not easy and it takes time. In most cases, it takes at least three to five years to change the culture of a high school. Arne Duncan was right. When it comes to high school turnaround, there are no silver bullets.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:44 PM | Permalink

“The interviewing process says as much about the school as it does about the candidate.”—The Teacher Leader

Note: Thanks to the passage of a $26 billion jobs bill to protect 300,000 teachers and other non-federal government workers, principals and school leaders may have the opportunity to actually add or save teaching positions.The interview process may be more important than you thought!

I thought long and hard after I read Finding the Best Teachers, which emphasized the importance of the interview process in hiring and retaining the best teachers. In doing so I arrived at one conclusion. The process of interviewing prospective teachers is the culmination of hundreds of small interviews, not of teacher candidates, but interviews that our staff conducted with me every day.

Every interaction I had with our staff was an interview of sorts. What occurred in those interviews of teacher candidates was the result of thousands of interactions that we had over months and years that cumulatively formed the culture of our school. It was our culture that we revealed to teacher candidates. It was our culture, our beliefs, attitudes, expectations, and commitment to each other that either attracted or repulsed would be candidates. Over a ten-year period of hiring teachers, the staff we ended up with was a direct reflection of our thinking and our mindset.

A school cannot exceed the quality of its teachers. In this respect, the moment of truth for school leaders is the teacher interview process, for the future of our school is determined by the team members we attract and those we fail to attract in those interviews.

Reputation: It’s all we have!

I once had an assistant principal who told me, “the only thing wrong with this school is its reputation.” I turned to him and said, “Our reputation is all we have!” When we interviewed teacher candidates, we kept in mind that they were probably interviewing at other schools. Even if they never ended up working at our school, we knew that the candidates would remember that first impression for a long time and they will not hesitate to share that impression, particularly if it was a bad one. We knew that how we greeted and welcomed teacher candidates as well as who conducted the interview and the manner in which the interview was conducted said much about our school and us. As Teacher Leader pointed out, “The interviewing process says as much about the school as it does about the candidate.”

How do you want to be remembered?

We knew that the manner in which our school approached the interview process would reveal our school culture to the candidate. So, think carefully about the impression you want to make on candidates. Do you want to be remembered as formal and professional or warm and inviting? Do you want to be viewed as a collaborative, cohesive team that shares key decisions or as a top-down, more formal school organization?

Teammate or Employee?

As a new teacher, I was interviewed and hired by the principal. I was introduced to the department chair on the first day teachers reported. Instead of being warmly greeted and embraced, it took me quite a while to gain acceptance and to find my place in the department. Ask yourself, are you looking for a teammate or an employee? In my case, I was hired to fill a vacancy not to be a team member.  If you want the candidate to be a member of a cohesive team, you will want to involve members of that team in the interview process. Yes, you may have to give up some control and the process may take longer, but the benefits will far outweigh the costs. Involving more people in the interview process will increase the staff’s sense of ownership and will help to ensure that the new teacher is welcomed and embraced upon arrival.

The Answer to Retaining Teachers

Teachers who get off to a bad start don’t last long. Some believe that the key to retaining teachers is a quality induction and mentoring program. However, I have come to believe that the solution to teacher-retention may begin with the interview process. Involving future team members in the process of selecting their new teammates will not only increase their sense of commitment, but, more importantly, it will ensure that those team members are committed to the success of the new hire.

Control or Cooperation?

Hiring new teachers may be our most important responsibility. How we deal with that responsibility may tell more about us than anything we say. If we want our staff’s cooperation, buy-in, and a sense of ownership, we must be willing to give up the illusion of control. If we are serious about collaboration, distributing leadership, and growing new leaders, we must provide our staff opportunities for meaningful involvement in key decisions, and what decision is more important than hiring staff.

Involving more people in the process will let the staff know that they are trusted and respected. Experience has taught me that our staff would take more time and be more cautious in hiring a teammate than I would be in “filling a vacancy,” particularly if time is short and we had a number of staff to hire.

Hiring or Recruiting

Real estate is all about location, location, and location. The same holds true for schools. Unfortunately, we can still accurately predict student test scores by zip code. Like most under-resourced schools, our school was both economically and geographically challenged. A vast majority of our teachers lived in affordable housing that was a long distance from our school. Their daily commute would find them driving past a half dozen schools in more advantaged neighborhoods with fewer needy students. We had to convince teacher candidates that the extra commute and time away from their family was worth it, and the best convincers are the teachers in your school. If they believe in what the school is doing, they will convey that belief to the candidate. 

We learned that, in under-resourced schools, we were recruiting and hiring at the same time. Time after time, teacher candidates would tell us, “All the other schools I interviewed with wanted to know what I could do for them. You were the only school that told me what you could do for me.”

The Best Recruiters

No school has too many top-notch teachers. One of the defining qualities of high-performing schools is that they are able to attract and retain the best teachers. Conversely, under-performing schools typically have high turnover and teachers with the least experience. As the years went on, we learned that our best recruiters were our own teachers. Our teachers were so proud of our school and what we were accomplishing that they couldn’t stop talking about it. Word of mouth became our best recruiting strategy. Schools in more advantaged areas simply could not believe that high-quality teachers would want to teach in a school like ours. The reality is that teachers want to work where they are a part of making a difference and they want to work in a teacher-friendly school.

A Teacher-Friendly School

When asked  by a group of visitors, what is different about this school, one of our teachers replied, “I have worked in schools all over the country, but this is the most teacher-friendly school that I have ever worked in.” When asked to explain she said, “In this school, our opinion counts. We get to make decisions like bell schedules and exam schedules. We approve field trips. We are constantly asked for our input. When we come up with ideas, we are encouraged to try them out.” Anyone can create a school culture that is teacher-friendly. It takes no money, but it does take time and effort. The Teacher Leader and I learned through experience that, if we build a teacher-friendly school, they (teachers) would come.

Interviewing is Year-Round

Hiring and interviewing the best teachers is a full-time, year-round activity. Every thing we do and say reflects on our school and its culture and it is the culture that attracts teachers. Instead of change for the sake of change, we must stand for responsible change—change that seeks to improve student performance on a solid foundation of positive beliefs, attitudes, expectations, and a growth mindset.

“Culture eats strategies for breakfast.” In the right culture virtually any interviewing strategy will work. In the wrong culture, the best interviewing strategies are doomed to fail.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:40 AM | Permalink

I am on vacation where we have access to basic cable. As I was channel surfing, I saw a promotion running for Christmas gifts. The channel was QVC, which apparently runs an annual “Christmas in July” promotion.

This reminded me of a conversation I had a few months ago with a high school faculty. This was a school that had been restructured. All teachers had to reapply for their jobs and only half were rehired. The school also had a new principal and a new administrative staff.

We were discussing accountability and one teacher mentioned that the students were “Christmas-treeing” the tests. While I had never heard the term “Christmas-treeing,” I quickly figured out that the students were not taking the tests seriously and were using the answer sheets to create drawings. In our discussion, the teachers talked about their frustration with the lack of student accountability.

The school, the teachers, and the administrators were being held accountable for the results of the test, but the students were not. The bottom line is that the careers of these educators as well as the reputation of the school and the school district depended on the good will of the students. If they didn’t feel like taking the test, there was nothing that could be done.

This is not the first time that I have had this discussion. I worked with one district in which all the high school principals were fired or replaced and hundreds of teachers fired or transferred on the basis of student test scores and that state had absolutely no student accountability.

In yet another state, a high school principal lamented that his students inexplicably decided that they were not going to put forth their best effort on the state tests. Despite the school sending record numbers of students to four-year colleges, the high school was placed on a state list of “low-performing schools.”

I worked in a high-pressure, high-accountability state that held high schools accountability by using eleven end-of-course exams to calculate adequate yearly progress. However, students were also held accountable. The tests were used to award course credit and as barriers to graduation. In this context, everyone, students, teachers, and administrators took the tests seriously. In the early days of the state program, only the schools were held accountable, and it was difficult to get the students motivated to take the tests. I must add that our teachers had excellent relationships with our students and, in most cases, the students would put forth effort simply because their teachers cared so much. However, we had time to build a school personalized school culture that emphasized the importance of student-teacher relationships. I cannot imagine what it would be like to go into a new school that was beginning to develop a positive culture and having to depend on the good will of the students when the staff barely had time to get to know them.

Notice that I didn’t even mention student attendance and the inconsistencies in holding students accountable for regular attendance. I will save that for another discussion.

From experience I have learned that unless everyone—students, teachers, administrators, schools, and school districts-- is held accountable for student performance, there is not true accountability. Unless everyone is working together toward a common goal, we have no accountability system. Instead, we have a scapegoating system.

The following is a summary of information on state accountability systems, exit exams, and end-of-course exams as provided by the Education Commission of the States:

Exit Exams

• States with exit exam policies require students to achieve a passing score on each subject tested in the exit exam, as well as fulfill all other graduation requirements, to receive a high school diploma.
• Exit exams vary greatly from state to state in numerous ways, including the level of content tested (upper middle grades in some states, while upper high school grades in others) and the opportunities for students who do not pass (from none to numerous and detailed appeals procedures and alternative methods of demonstrating competency).
• School accountability: Nearly every state with an exit exam uses it as a means of measuring school performance.
• Course credit: Six states use exit exams as a component of the course grade.
• Level of diploma: Six states use scores as a criterion for an honors or other advanced diploma or endorsement.
• Scholarship eligibility: Three states use the scores from exit exams to determine scholarship eligibility.
• As of June 2007, 24 states and the District of Columbia do not have (and have no plans to implement) exit exams, citing adequate means to measure student performance and academic rigor in existing state assessments and other mechanisms.
• Currently, 22 states require passage of state exit exams as a component of high school graduation requirements. By 2012, the number of states with exit exams will grow to 26.

Subjects Tested

• The subjects tested in state exit exams vary greatly by state, but nearly all include a reading/writing component and a mathematics component.
• Some states are phasing in tests over time to increase the scope of subjects tested. For example, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) currently includes reading and mathematics, and passage of a writing test will be required starting with the class of 2010.

End-of-course Exams

• End-of-course exams are given at the end of a specific course (for example, after completing Biology I) rather than at a particular grade level (i.e. 10) or at a single point in time during the high school career. In contrast, standards-based exams are given at a specific grade level, for example, at the end of grade 10. Ten states use end-of-course exams for exit purposes.
• States that use exit exams for other purposes including:
• School accountability: Nearly every state with an exit exam uses it as a means of measuring student performance.
• Course credit: Six states use exit exams as a component of the course grade.
• Level of diploma: Six states use scores as a criterion for an honors or other advanced diploma or endorsement.
• Scholarship eligibility: Three states use the scores from exit exams to determine scholarship eligibility.
• 16 states require the scores from the exit exams to be printed on the students' transcripts.

Graduation Requirements

• 22 states currently use exit exams as a component of their graduation requirements.
• By 2012, four more states will use exit exams:
• Arkansas- beginning school year 2009-2010
• Maryland- beginning with the class of 2009
• Oklahoma- beginning with the class of 2012
• Washington- beginning with the class of 2008
• States are slowly phasing in new subjects to be tested in their exit exams. 
• Ten states use end-of-course exams for exit purposes.  
• North Carolina uses both end-of-course and standards based assessments.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:33 AM | Permalink

Have you had a chance to review the new Common Core Standards? How do your state math and ELA standards stack up against the new Common Core State Standards? According to a new report issued by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, many states have a lot of work ahead of them.

• ELA Common Core Standards are more rigorous than the standards in 37 states.
• Math Common Core Standards are more rigorous than the standards in 39 states.
• ELA and Math Common Core Standards are more rigorous than both ELA and math standards in 33 states.

In addition, the report, which provides state-by-state analysis, indicates “California, Indiana and the District of Columbia have ELA standards that are clearly superior to those of the Common Core. And nearly a dozen states have ELA or math standards in the same league as the Common Core.”

Principal’s Perspective

• For school leaders, the rules and the game are about to change.
• For most, the bar will be set significantly higher.
• For those in states with already high standards, the new standards will not necessarily be more rigorous, but they will different.
• If your school does not teach literacy (reading, writing, higher-order thinking, and discussion) skills schoolwide in all core content areas, get ready, because you will. (I will write a separate blog article on literacy and the new Common Core Standards.)
• By my estimate, the Common Core ELA Standards raise the reading requirements for all students by at least two years over the current standards.
• The Common Core Standards are new and by definition schools do not currently have the capacity to teach to the new standards. That means years of job-imbedded professional development.
• Teacher training programs are not yet preparing teachers to teach to the new standards.

The Bottom Line

Principal will again be asked to build the airplane while it is in flight. Expectations will continue to increase in the face of declining resources and more rigorous standards.

Principals will be held accountable for successfully implementing the new Common Core Standards while continuing to raise student achievement even though their current teachers and their new teachers do not and will not have the training needed to teach to those standards.

The New Equation

Higher expectation + more rigorous standards – declining resources – less teacher capacity = Our job just became much more difficult!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:01 PM | Permalink

Years ago, a principal friend of mine in a nearby high school was the subject of a student prank. The students pasted her head on a photograph of a naked woman and stuffed the picture into a display cabinet that was as far away from the main office as possible. By the time the key could be located and the picture removed many, many of the students in the school were able to view it. The picture created quite a stir. The picture demeaned the principal, distracted students and staff alike, and disrupted school for most of the day. Of course, the perpetrators had to brag about it and they were appropriately disciplined. Every student expected that there would be a consequence as did the staff and parents.

More recently, the news has been replete with stories about General Stanley Allen McChrystal, who was relieved of his command in Afghanistan as a result of comments that were reported in Rolling Stone Magazine. At the time, very few experts were surprised that he lost his job because he publicly criticized his boss. No one questioned the General’s right to say what he said, nor did they question the right of his superior to take appropriate disciplinary action.

Fast forward to the present and a USA Today article by Ken Paulson, president of the Newseum and First Amendment Center. I had to read the opening several times before I could believe what I was reading.

“While we've all benefited from the good teachers and school administrators in our lives, it's hard to shake the memories of those who either didn't teach us very well or treated us badly. Students in the pre-digital era pretty much just had to grin and bear it. We would grumble to our friends or complain to our parents, but we weren't going to get an audience with the school board. Times have changed. The current generation is armed with social media, and it's payback time.”

So, let me get this straight. If you don’t agree with or like someone, you have the right to use the Internet as a global printing press to undermine, demean, and slander that person all in the name of “payback.” It is one thing to stuff a picture into a display cabinet where it can be removed quickly. While the memories linger, there is no permanent record of the incident. It is quite another thing to be quoted in a magazine and universally posted on the Internet where everything is permanent.

I believe in the right of student expression and the need to include student voice as an integral part of school improvement efforts. As a principal, I never exercised my right of prior review over our student newspaper. Instead, I focused my efforts on recruiting, hiring, and retaining the best teachers whose job it was to teach and guide young journalists. It is true that some of our colleagues have exceeded their authority, which could happen in any setting. However, this article has taken the current fad of blaming and attacking teachers and principals to a new level. Teachers and school leaders are not the enemy!

Paulson contends that “sophomoric speech is free speech too.” He argues that students in two Pennsylvania schools were unjustly suspended for creating mock MySpace profiles featuring photos of their principals. While he admits that “both pages were profane and laden with sexual innuendo. Sample epithets from one: "Big whore" and "big steroid freak." Yet, Paulson insists that this behavior is merely a modern version of wearing a black armband (Tinker v. Des Moines) and that students should not be subject to any consequences or disciplinary action.

Paulson explains that, “While there's no question that these attacks on principals were sophomoric and insulting, we tend to forget that students also have rights. Too often, adults seem to believe that you get handed the Bill of Rights along with your high school diploma; that's not the case. It's tough to defend such insults by teens, but check out the comments section of any online publication and you'll find adults posting abrasive, degrading, racist and sexist opinions, all with the full protection of the First Amendment.”

Surprise! I agree with Mr. Paulson. Students do have free speech rights and they do have the right to print what they like. Likewise, as educators and parents, we have the responsibility to use these teachable moments to make education as meaningful and relevant as possible by connecting classroom learning to real-world situations. Students must learn that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that every cause has an effect, and that every right is accompanied by a responsibility.

Mr. Paulson and I were both educated in the 20^th century and, those of us, myself included, educated in that bygone age have a tendency to believe that all the experiences gained and lessons learned are relevant to today’s schools. Some even believe that their experience working in schools whose goal was to sort students for success has relevance to current schools whose goal is raising all, not some, students to high levels of achievement.

In the good old days scurrilous notes and harmless pranks would reach a limited audience the memories of which faded quickly. There was no permanent record that could be accessed by anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. Today, the success of every student is critically important and everything written and posted on the Internet is permanent. Every computer is a publishing house and every student has the potential to instantly be a best-selling author. It is high time that we all got our heads out of the 20th century where we were educated and put our heads in the 21st century where our children live. Wake up people! It’s a different world out there!

Finally, I have a suggestion for Mr. Paulson. As is your right, create a fake web page or MySpace page under the name of your Chairman, CEO, or any of your Board members. Be sure to include profane, obscene, and slanderous statements about them. For an added touch, add some racist or sexually explicit language. Wait a couple of weeks and contact me to let me know how that worked out for you.

Next: Part 2 of “It’s Payback Time.”

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:37 PM | Permalink

According to a recent study, from 2003 to 2007, the turnover rate for Chicago principals was 73%, meaning that 61% of the lowest performing elementary schools have had three or more principals since 2000. Likewise, researchers Ed Fuller and Michelle Young examined data on Texas public schools from 1996 through 2008. They found that only 50% of newly hired principals stay on the job for three years. Seventy percent leave before their five-year anniversary.

The researchers point out that the impact of principal turnover on the schools is devastating:

• Principals assigned to low-performing schools generally are less experienced
• They received their training from less selective programs
• Inexperienced, under-qualified principals tend not to stick around long;
• They are less adept attracting and hiring the best teachers.
• They have high teacher turnover because they good at retaining well-qualified teachers.
• They are likely to be replaced by yet another inexperienced, under-qualified principal

Speaking before the Texas House Public Education Committee, Fuller testified that, “A “revolving door” pattern among principals makes it difficult for most reform efforts to gain traction. For high-needs schools, the average principal needs to remain in place for four to five years at the elementary level and five to seven years at the secondary level, Fuller says, adding that it takes a minimum of three years on average for principals to make a “substantial, lasting difference.” The larger the school, the longer it takes,” Fuller says. “The longer the school has been without a stable principal, the longer it takes. The greater the teacher turnover, the longer it takes. The lower the achievement, the longer it takes.”

Furthermore, Fuller pointed out that “Contrary to popular belief, principals do not leave because of low pay, but because they feel “micromanaged” by central office staff or they lack the necessary resources to be successful. They also report frustration with a rigorous and punitive accountability system. “Principals get really frustrated when that happens,” Fuller says. “They don’t have the tools and autonomy to do their jobs well.” Surprisingly, characteristics such as race, age, gender, rural versus urban districts, and certification test results had a negligible impact on retention.”

Let me get this straight. The poorest schools attract the least experienced principals who, in turn, attract the least experienced teachers, and the least experienced principals leave earlier, which results in more teacher turnover.

And the national strategy to turn around the lowest performing schools is to perpetuate the turnover problem by creating more turnover? Furthermore, principals have only two years instead of the four to seven years needed to improve student performance before they must be replaced. How do you think that will work out?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A few week’s ago, I ran across a retired teacher, who had built a nationally recognized music program. He and I had worked together, and I had the pleasure of being his administrator and one of his biggest supporters. He was a true showman and I had the distinct pleasure of attending many of his outstanding student performances. Many of his students went on to musical careers because of his outstanding teaching.

I asked him how his successor was doing. He turned to me and said, “I have the feeling that he is driving my car down the highway.” Without hesitation, I replied, “I hope he is. After all, the greatest compliment that he could pay you, his teacher and mentor, was to carry on the legacy of excellence that you built.” He looked at me and smiled. “I never thought about it that way.” I said, “How would you feel if the program that you had worked so hard to build, died a slow death?”

Jay Mathews’ tribute to retiring Wakefield High School Principal, Doris Jackson, is a fitting testimonial to the power of the teacher-student relationship and how that relationship can have a positive impact on a school for a decade. Wakefield High School’s former principal, Marie Djouadi, was a highly respected principal who led Wakefield from a school that was condemned and criticized to the ranks of the highly commended. When her assistant, Doris Jackson, took over in 2002, she had big shoes to fill. I worked in two different schools that bordered Wakefield. So, I had a number of opportunities to talk with Doris, and I can tell you, that she was all business from the get go.

Wakefield High School, located in Arlington, Virginia has the odds stacked against it. It is a high-poverty, urban school with a diverse, highly mobile student population. Approximately half of the students are low-income. The school is 85% minority--47 percent Hispanic, 27 percent black, 15 percent white and 11 percent Asian. In addition, Wakefield has a large number of second language (ELL) students who come from over 60 countries and speak more than forty languages.

Fast-forward eight years and Doris Jackson has not only sustained what Marie had started, but she paid the ultimate compliment to her teacher--she took the school to another, higher level. President Obama delivered a nationally televised speech from Wakefield last year. It is no accident that the President chose Wakefield as the site for his speech. Despite many risk factors including a decaying physical plant, Wakefield has become a beacon of hope for under-resourced schools across the country.

Referring to Doris Jackson as “one of the nation’s most imaginative and resourceful principals,” the article listed some of her many innovations and accomplishments including the following:

• The College Board Inspiration Award for outstanding work in preparing students for college and beyond.
• Top 2% of all high schools in Advanced Placement participation
• 37% pass rate, more than twice the national average, on Advanced Placement exams.
• The only public, non-magnet high school in the Washington metro area to require a senior project
• Met adequate yearly progress
• A strong focus on ninth grade

Great Schools Have Great Leaders

Leaders grow leaders! The test of a great leader is what happens when they are gone. While no change is permanent, at least in Wakefield’s case, the work of Marie Djouadi was carried on and further extended by her successor, Doris Jackson. Hopefully, Doris’ assistant principal, Chris Willmore, will carry on the work and continue the legacy of excellence at Wakefield High School.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Legendary basketball coach, John Wooden, died on June 4 just four months short of his one-hundredth birthday. Respected by his opponents and revered by his players, Coach Wooden is considered by many to be the greatest coach in American sports history. John Wooden was as innovative coach who inspired many with his simple homilies. Here are a few of my favorites and what they meant to me as a principal:

“Be quick but don’t hurry.” – Over time I learned that we had to have a sense of urgency about raising student achievement. However, urgency is not panic. We learned that it was important to take both a short-term and long-term approach to the key challenges we faced like literacy, numeracy, and improving student behavior. Change is counterintuitive. You have to go slow in order to go fast.

“It’s about what is correct not who is correct.” – Our school worked because no one cared who received the credit. It was always about doing the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons.

“Do not mistake activity for success.” – Throughout the first two-thirds of my career we judged success on activity not on results. The bottom line is that whatever we do must improve student performance.

“Happiness begins when selfishness ends.” – Our greatest strength was the commitment that our teachers had to each other and how they, working together, could make a difference for our students.

“I am a slow learner, but when I learn something, I learn it will.” – “Given time, all students can learn. We came to accept that some students simply needed more instructional time to learn certain subjects. We also learned that, just because a student took more time to learn something, it did not mean that the student did not learn it well. Fortunately for us, the research has verified our faith in our students. Secondly, we learned that we had a responsibility to our students to consistently practice effective approaches and strategies. Rather than move from one fad to another each year, we had the courage to stay the course. We learned one key to success—find something that works and keep doing it over and over again.

“Success is never final. Failure is never fatal. It is courage that counts.” – Even though our school was called a “failing school” by our own superintendent, we didn’t run from the challenge. We didn’t look for excuses. We knew that we had every reason to fail, but, if we did, it meant that the future of our students would be diminished. We stopped blaming and started learning. We learned, as every teacher and school leaders learns, that every year presented a new challenge. We also learned that success also bring about new challenges and temptations. Finally, we learned that we had to have the courage to admit that we didn’t know all the answers, but if we worked together hard enough and long enough, we would prevail.

“It is what you learn after you know it all that counts.” – First, we learned that learning was the job. Second, the many visitors to our school helped us realize that reflecting on what we did helped us learn the lessons over again in another way.

Finally, Coach Wooden always put the team above the individual. We learned that building the collective capacity of our staff was more important than creating individual masters. We learned that, by tapping into the collective intelligence of our staff, we made better decisions, had more buy-in, and spent less time correcting mistakes.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:32 PM | Permalink

Congress is considering $23 billion in new legislation designed to avert massive teacher layoffs around the country. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, in a letter to Congressional leaders wrote, "We are gravely concerned that ongoing state and local budget challenges are threatening hundreds of thousands of teacher jobs for the upcoming school year." The problem is that most of the districts have already made their cuts and the departing teachers have already made other plans.

I have always said that the worst job in the world is being a principal when school budgets are being cut. It is hard enough to lead a school and raise student achievement, but in difficult economic times like these, it can become overwhelming. Even though school staff and resources are reduced, the expectations for improving student achievement continue to go up—more with less.

The Staffing Dilemma

Staffing a large high school can be a daunting task. For us, the process started in January and carried on through the first or second week in October. Staffing takes months of staff time meeting, collaborating, setting priorities, and making plans, all of which usually have to be redone several times because of changing district formulas and funding streams. In bad budget times like these, the changes can come almost weekly.

In April, principals had to hand deliver “termination of employment” letters to teacher who may not be rehired because of budget shortfalls. Even though those individuals were almost always rehired, handing them the letter was painful to me and frightening to them. I must admit that, once I handed a teacher one of those letters, our relationship was never quite the same.

Sleepless Nights

I dreaded the beginning of each school year. Don’t get me wrong. I looked forward to the excitement of starting all over again, but I dreaded the possibility of losing more staff.

Our district staffed on enrollment projections released in March of the previous school year. On the fifth day of the new school year, schools submitted enrollment figures and, as a result, either lost or gained staff. This often would result in teachers moving between schools after the third or fourth week of school. Moving around teachers in the beginning of a school year creates chaos in the schools. The entire master schedule has to be redone. Teaching assignments are changed. Worst of all, weeks of valuable instructional time are lost while students get used to new teachers.

This practice was begun in the 1960s and continues to this day. This is a classic example of what I call an ABC practice—Administration By Convenience.

For schools with low student mobility rates, those projections were almost always correct. However, our school had a very high 30% mobility rate.

In most high schools, incoming students include the new ninth grade class and a few upperclassmen, who move or transfer. So, about 25% to 30% of the students in a typical high school are new to the school each year. In our school, 48% of the students were new each year, and we had a 15% to 17% turnover in students over the summer months. In other words, we had no idea how many students would show up nor did we know who the new students were. We didn’t know what grade they were in. We didn’t know if they needed a reading course or special education services. If more students than expected enrolled, we added teachers. If fewer students enrolled, we cut teaching positions.

I dreaded the thought of telling a teacher, who we just recruited, that she didn’t have a job. I also believed that it was unethical to hire someone when there was a 50/50 chance that they would have a job. So, like many of my colleagues in high-poverty, high-mobility schools, where staffing was like rolling the dice, I held back positions, meaning that I didn’t fill all the allotted positions. Holding back positions meant that we were sometimes hiring teachers in September. You don’t have to be an expert to understand that, in September, you are typically hiring those who others did or would not hire. This is no way to build capacity or improve your teaching staff.

This kind of district policy puts principals between a proverbial rock and a hard place. It is unethical to hire someone, and ask them to relocate to take a position that may not exist. On the other hand, it is irresponsible to knowingly wait to hire teachers in September and put your school at the end of the hiring line. So, you are either unethical or irresponsible. In this scenario, no one wins.

The Bottom Line

These types of staffing practices exacerbate the impact of budget cuts on schools with high numbers of under-resourced students. The schools in more affluent areas usually have more stable or even growing student populations, while schools in older, diverse, or high-poverty areas have a more transient population. Again, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

How can we say that we are serious about improving student achievement when we insist on holding on to antiquated district practices that were developed in an age in which schools sorted students for success?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:19 PM | Permalink

Current school turnaround models call for the replacement of the principal, and, in some cases, half of the teaching staff. However, the real problem may not be that there are too many bad principals and assistant principals, but that the principals and assistant principals don’t stay long enough.

Recent research conducted by Dr. Ed Fuller reveal some alarming data about the mobility of both principal and assistant principals:

• 70% of principals leave their positions within five years.
• 60% of newly hired assistant principals were no longer in the position after five years on the job.
• 30% of the assistant principals were no longer in school administration.
• The largest proportion of assistant principals either became principals or moved to central office positions.
• Turnover in assistant principals was highest in low-performing schools and schools with higher concentrations of poor and minority students.
• High turnover among school administrators correlates with high teacher turnover.
• Ironically, under-resourced students, who are most in need of stability, are least likely to attend schools with stable adult populations.
• The researchers conclude that school improvement is extremely difficult when the staff in constantly churning.
• The study found that principals who had been assistant principals were less likely to leave their jobs.

The Bottom Line

• Consistency and stability over time are key elements of both quality classroom instruction and systemic school improvement.
• Change for the sake of change, also known as moving people around for the sake of moving them around, is not a formula for responsible change.
• Instead of devising ways of getting rid of or moving school leaders, efforts should be directed at finding ways to keep them in the jobs longer and to build their capacity to lead change efforts in their schools.
• While constantly changing the players gives the appearance that change is occurring, the reality is that all the activity only amounts to a simple rearranging of the furniture.
• Don’t just move people around. Improve the capacity of those who are already on the job.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Technology is not only increasing academic rigor by driving up the complexity of reading material, but it is also making it more difficult for school leaders and parents to reign in some destructive behaviors like bullying. The Washington Examiner points out that bullying is on the rise as “Kids find new ways to pick on each other—off the radar of even the most watchful parents and school officials.” One school system reported 1,200 incidents of bullying in one year.

A Maryland bill to curb gang activity in schools may help monitor the bullying problem by increasing information sharing between police and the schools. One parent finally admitted that she is being forced to monitor her child’s Internet use.

Robin Goodman, a clinical psychologist, said, “It used to be, someone would throw a kid’s book on the ground or whisper rumors about them. Now, what you have is you have your phone, you have the Internet.  You don’t escape it. It’s not like there’s a safety zone.”

The Bottom Line: Anyone with an Internet connection has access to an electronic printing press that can do a lot of damage in a short period of time. The problem is that there is no redo button on the Internet. Whatever is posted remains on the Internet forever.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:36 PM | Permalink

In Tripping Up the Educational Process, The Teacher Leader provides a great example of why it is so much better for school leaders and classroom teachers to seek cooperation than to continually pursue the illusion of control. Although the issue of field trips and lost class time may seem trivial to some, believe me, it is an important issue for the classroom teacher.

Along with copier breakdowns and chronically tardy students, students constantly being away from their classrooms continues to be a major source of teacher dissatisfaction. Just as important is the mixed message that is sent went classrooms are continuously disrupted. Teachers ask, “what is important, teaching and learning or something else, anything else?”

When thinking about the importance of collaboration relating to field trips and other cases of the interruption of classroom instruction, school leaders—administrators and teachers as well—would do well to consider the following:

The 80-15-5 Rule

80% of all field trips are legitimate. 5% should never be taken. 15% could go one way or another. When we, as school leaders, fail to differentiate between must go, need to go, and nice to go interruptions/field trips, we are unintentionally creating a situation in which the 15% “bubble trips” become more like the 5% “don’t go” trips and we have a critical mass of marginal field trips, most of which come at the worst possible times, like the end of a semester.

It is our responsibility as leaders to deal with the 5%. The question is how? Contrary to popular opinion, most school leaders don’t like to say no to teachers, particularly when teachers are making a legitimate request that means that they are taking on more work for themselves.

Collaboration Leads to Cooperation

In reality, The Teacher Leader is talking about true collaboration and shared responsibility more than about field trips. For our school, field trip procedures turned out to be a classic case of “those who are most affected should be involved in the decisions.” After much thought, I realized that, in most cases, I wasn’t personally impacted by field trips. However, as the pressures from ever-increasing accountability grew, I became aware that, as teachers were holding themselves more and more accountable for student performance, they wanted more input into decisions that affected their classrooms.

I am not a good guesser! Are you?

I learned the hard way that, although I spent a lot of time trying to support and please teachers, it was much better if I simply asked them and involved them in decisions that directly impacted their lives as teachers—bell schedules, field trips, exam schedules, master schedules, room assignments, tardy policies, attendance procedures, literacy initiatives, and math curriculum.

Silos of Expertise

Over time, I learned that it took a number of highly skilled people to complete the complex task of raising the achievement of each and every student. To reach every student, we needed to tap into the collective intelligence of our entire staff. Everyone needed to work together. To get everyone working together they had to be involved in key decisions. Without that involvement, there would be no commitment or ownership.

No Messes

Looking back, involving people in collaborative decisions takes more time on the front end, but we spent much less time on the back end cleaning up messes from poorly thought-out decisions. Collaboration actually saved us time and meant that the up front time was spent focusing on the decision and not on the personalities and hurt feelings that we encountered on the back end of poor, hastily-made decisions.

High fences make good neighbors

The irony is that those leaders, who most want to please, often create the most conflict. Weak leaders, through their need to be liked and lack of will to act, set up conflicts between and among staff members. Some schools operate like Deadwood—anything goes. Lawlessness in itself creates more lawlessness. If we want everyone to work together, we are going to have to work with everyone to set clear, agreed upon procedures, and we are going to have to have the will to follow through with those who refuse to work together.

Peer Pressure is a Great Thing

Used positively, peer pressure is a great thing. As soon as their colleagues began making the decisions on field trips, two things happened.  First, the number of field trip requests dropped. Second, the quality of the trips improved—they were better thought out and more efficiently run.

One last thought

You can’t have something unless you are willing to give it away. In this case, you won’t get cooperation unless you are willing to give up the illusion of authority and control and to give cooperation through collaboration.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

What if a College Education Just isn't For Everyone? (USA TODAY, March 16, 2010). A USA Today article asks “What if a college education just isn’t for everyone?” More states are requiring high-school students to take college entrance exams. Meanwhile parents and educators are wondering if the focus on a college education is ignoring students who don't thrive in classrooms. Average students are being ignored in favor of those who are college-bound, they say, and the emphasis on higher education is forcing other students to go to college because they feel they have to and not because they want to.

The following is an excerpt from an article I wrote in Diplomas Count:

Through years of experience as a high school principal, I have learned to get really nervous whenever I hear someone proclaim what “all” schools and “all” students should do. Likewise, I have learned to be wary of people who propose simple solutions to complex problems. Every school has its own DNA and each and every child is unique and deserves a customized learning plan.

I have the same reaction to the goal of preparing all students for college. Is that what we really mean? Is college what we really want for all students? Have the experts asked the students? Have they spoken with parents? Have the experts consulted teachers and school leaders? Based on experience, my guess is that they have not.

Agreed, there are some things that we do want for all students, including graduating from high school, a rigorous and relevant curriculum, quality teaching, a personalized, safe, warm, and inviting school environment coupled with high expectations, and a willingness on the part of the staff to take responsibility to help each student succeed.

Reformers admit that there are no quick fixes, yet they continue to propose “all student” measures, including that all students will take algebra, or something called algebra, in the 8th grade, and that all students will graduate college-ready.

Isn’t “college for all” simply the old factory model dressed up in more attractive clothing? Kids were started down the same educational conveyor belt and were expected to arrive equally prepared in the same time frame at the end of the assembly line.

In practice, the factory model efficiently weeded out the defective, so that only the best and brightest students reached the end of the line. In truth, kids were sorted for success. Some succeeded, some failed, and that was the way it was supposed to be. After all, the rationale was, we don’t want every child to go to college; we don’t have any jobs for them.

In theory, the factory model gave everyone access to a basic education, but an excellent education was reserved for the few, most of whom were the children of the more privileged. Today, we must educate all students to high levels—access combined with excellence. On that point, reformers and practitioners seem to agree. The real question is, how do we go about raising the bar?

If we are really serious about the success of each and every student and about guaranteeing both access and excellence, we will have to do away with the assembly line and think in terms of customization—one student at a time. We must treat each student as an individual. After all, isn’t that the way we would want our own child treated?

Customization—access and excellence for each student—is expensive, time-consuming, inconvenient, and a lot of hard work. We are already paying a big price for our “weeding out” system, however. School dropouts cost us hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Worse yet, we are ensuring that, for a significant number of the adults in this country, the American dream is out of reach.

The idea of “college for everyone” is a road paved with good intentions, but locking every student into a college path is actually limiting. I would argue instead that every student must be prepared for a variety of postsecondary experiences, which include two- and four-year colleges, and technical and career schools.

We know that children do not grow physically, socially, or emotionally at the same rate, nor do they have the same interests. Is it really wise to force students into situations where they all must learn at the same rate and simultaneously pursue the same interests? When we do so, we are perpetuating the assembly-line mentality and ensuring that the results will look much like a bell curve, which guarantees that many students should and will fail.

Instead, we need to set students up to succeed. Our students need and deserve the option of multiple pathways to success. Some need additional time to get there. Some need more resources. Some need career and technical education programs that provide meaningful and relevant real-world learning experiences. Some students need mentors and tutors. The key is to hold high standards constant and allow individual students many pathways to success.

Some might conclude that this is code for lowering standards. But anyone who believes that preparing graduates for something other than college is lowering our standards hasn’t done his homework. For example, today’s career and technical education programs are not yesterday’s old vocational education programs. I am referring to true CTE programs that are designed to lead to apprenticeships, internships, or industry certification, or that serve as a bridge to technical and trade schools.

We all know that technology has driven up the complexity of just about everything we do. That same complexity has driven up the literacy and mathematics requirements of virtually every one of the 16 occupational clusters defined by the U.S. Department of Labor.

“Same path” solutions ensure failure. In broadening our objective from “college-ready for all” to “college-, workplace-, and career-ready for all,” we are simultaneously raising standards and increasing the chances for student success. If we are to reach each and every student, our educational system needs more requisite variety. Schools need more flexibility, not less. Students need more options, not fewer. Schools succeed or fail one student at a time. They need to focus teams of educational professionals on the needs of individual students. Students should have education plans customized to their learning needs. Time must become a variable, and learning outcomes a constant, not the reverse, as is now the case in many areas. Students should not matriculate through school based on seat time and age. Instead, progress must be measured on mastery of course content.

Our students need to be prepared to live and work in their world, the 21st century, not the world we grew up in. Their world demands postsecondary education and training. We must continually remind ourselves that any graduate who is not ready for college, a career, and the workplace has effectively been sentenced to a lifetime of marginal employment and second-class citizenship. It is our responsibility to teach them, to prepare them, and to raise each of them up to new heights, not run them down an assembly line, screen them out, or sort them for success.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:38 AM | Permalink

Last August, First Lady, Michelle Obama, was chastised by Washington Post writer, Robin Givhan, who reminded readers that “None of them (previous first ladies) revealed as much leg as the current first lady.” Givhan cautioned Mrs. Obama that “Avoiding the appearance of queenly behavior is politically wise. But it does American culture no favors if a first lady tries so hard to be average that she winds up looking common.”

Ms. Givhan is qualified to address fashion issues. However, as Spring breaks into full bloom, high school principals and assistant principals will be forced to become experts on fashion and to enforce student dress code policies, many of which are unenforceable.

Believe me, as a high school principal, the last thing that I wanted to do was worry about dress code policies. The reality of life is that some students will push the envelope and dress so provocatively or inappropriately that they distract their peers to the point that they disrupt the educational process.

I can remember a prominent legislator confronting me because I had the audacity to send his daughter home to change from her pajamas and slippers into appropriate school attire. I reminded him that, not only did I not discipline his daughter, but that I had personally warned his daughter and her friends not to wear pajamas to school for an upcoming school celebration.

School systems make a difficult and unpleasant task doable by having policies that are specific enough to be enforceable. In Fairfax County Public Schools, Virginia, student services representatives annually meet with principals and ask for feedback on the current policy. The policy is kept up-to-date, and principals have specific, identifiable behaviors to enforce. The Fairfax County policy is clear and reasonable. “All students are expected to dress appropriately for a K-12 educational environment. Any clothing that interferes with or disrupts the educational environment is unacceptable. Clothing with language or images that are vulgar, discriminatory, or obscene or clothing that promotes illegal or violent conduct, such as the unlawful use of weapons, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or drug paraphernalia, or clothing that contains threats such as gang symbols is prohibited. (See page X, for additional information regarding gang-related clothing.) Clothing should fit, be neat and clean, and conform to standards of safety, good taste, and decency. Clothing that exposes cleavage, private parts, the midriff, or undergarments, or that is otherwise sexually provocative, is prohibited. Examples of prohibited clothing include, but are not limited to: sagging or low-cut pants, low-cut necklines that show cleavage, tube tops, halter tops, backless blouses or blouses with only ties in the back, clothing constructed of see-through materials, and head coverings unless required for religious or medical purposes.”

Other school systems take the easy way out and leave the dress code issue totally up to the principal’s judgment. Instead of taking a position, they put the principal on the chopping block. For example, one school system’s policy stated, “A student’s dress and appearance shall not cause disruption, distract others from the educational process or create a health or safety problem. Students must comply with specific building dress regulations of which students will be given prior notice.”

Upon reading this, I concluded that, given some of the current attitudes about dress, a student would literally have to run through the hallways naked to cause the kind of disruption that would warrant action by the principal under this policy. Perhaps I am overstating the issue, but there is simply too much subjectivity in the application of this policy to ensure consistent and fair enforcement. In other words, the policy is unenforceable.

That wouldn’t stop a school official from calling the principal to complain that supposed students, who were walking down the street in the middle of the day, were dressed inappropriately. Nor would it stop another official from calling to complain that a constituent objected to the principal’s interpretation of the dress code. Caught in the middle again!

Principals want to be instructional leaders. School systems need to align policy with practice to ensure that the school leaders they hold accountable for student achievement actually have the tools and resources needed and that they are protected from the distractions of the fashion police.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Forbes Magazine recently released a list of the nation’s 25 wealthiest counties. Topping the list was Loudon County, Virginia, home of one of this year’s Breakthrough Schools, Park View High School.

NASSP’s Breakthrough Schools project, is sponsored by MetLife Foundation. The goal of the project is to identify, recognize, and showcase middle level and high schools that serve large numbers of students living in poverty and are high achieving or dramatically improving student achievement.

In other words, these schools are beating the odds. While poverty continues to be one of the only and most consistent linear relationships in social science and the best predictor of school success across the country, these ten schools have broken through the poverty barrier and have demonstrated consistent progress in raising academic achievement over an extended period of time.

I know what it is like to be the principal of a Breakthrough School. J.E.B. Stuart High School was in the first group named in 2004. Believe me, it was a great honor for our school. I had been preaching to our staff for years that we may not have the highest test scores in our district, but we may be the best school—doing the most with the students we have.

This award doesn’t come easily. It takes the total dedication of the entire staff to overcome tremendous odds. At the time Stuart High School was named a Breakthrough School, our home district, Fairfax County, Virginia, was the wealthiest county in America. This year Fairfax slipped to number two.

At the time, I felt that our award went largely ignored by our district. I was later told in private that the nation’s wealthiest county didn’t want a poor, disadvantaged, high-second language, high-mobility school like ours to be its poster child. It just wasn’t good for business.

While speaking at a luncheon at the recent NASSP Convention, I asked Park View High School Principal, Viriginia (Ginger) Minshew, “So, what is it like to be the poorest school in the wealthiest school district in America?” She didn’t have to say a word. I could tell by the look on her face, which confirmed my experience. Ginger agreed with me that there was a pecking order among the schools, and the poorer schools are at the bottom. Principals in under-resourced schools must constantly fight and advocate for their students.

We say we want under-resourced schools to excel, but when they do, it makes other, more advantaged schools uncomfortable. Leaders and teachers in these schools have all the same issues that their counterparts have in more resourced schools. However, they have many additional obstacles to overcome. They must first concern themselves with ensuring that basic needs of their students like food and clothing are met. Teachers in high-poverty schools often must be surrogate parents for their students, who don’t have the kind of support system that middle class students have.

Unlike her counterparts in Loudon County, Ginger Minshew’s school cannot reflect its community. If it does, it fails. Instead of following the lead of the community, Park View High School must overcome its context and be a leader and the creator of a culture of high expectations and high achievement.

However, there is another side to the story that only someone who had worked in a high-poverty school would understand. In fact, it is, perhaps, the best kept secret in education today. You see, in under-resourced schools, I felt more appreciation in one day from our students than many of my colleagues receive in a lifetime of working in more advantaged schools. You know that you are needed and that you are making a difference and that keeps you going every day. It doesn’t make the job easier, but it sure makes it more rewarding for principals like Ginger Minshew. Congratulations to Ginger Minshew and her dedicated staff at Park View High School and to all the 2010 Breakthrough Schools.

Something to think about: A number of the principals of these Breakthrough Schools, including yours truly, would have been replaced if current school turnaround measures were in place.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:47 PM | Permalink

Do We Need Lunch?

Jay Mathews’ suggestion that we eliminate lunch or even cafeterias would delight most administrators. I know that thirty years of standing on tile floors in school cafeterias takes a toll on the feet, legs, and back. Ouch! Jay has visited my school and he knows what a well-run cafeteria can and should look like at lunch.

I know a principal who did eliminate lunch, but not for the reasons Jay mentioned. This principal had so many fights and disturbances that he rearranged the schedule and put lunch at the end of the day. Instead of eating lunch, the students went home. Voila! No more fights. Problem solved!

Suggest eliminating lunch to my good friend, Mike Kakuska, the former principal at Roswell High School in Roswell, NM, and he would immediately ask you, “When would my kids eat?” In 2004, the first year of the program, our schools were both named NASSP-MetLife Foundation Breakthrough Schools, which are high-performing, high-poverty secondary schools. Breakthrough Schools must overcome tremendous obstacles to help each and every student succeed. Of the twelve schools named that year, our two schools were the only non-magnet, non-alternative, neighborhood schools. We didn’t sort applications. We served anyone who showed up at our door.

Even though we were located 2,000 miles apart, our schools shared a common characteristic. A number of our students relied heavily on federally subsidized breakfast and lunch programs. Mike told many stories of students who ate nothing from the time they left his school on Friday until they returned Monday morning. Mike’s first goal as principal was, not to make AYP, but to feed his hungry students.

Eliminating lunch would mean that many of our students would not eat. The cafeteria in our schools was a necessity not a luxury. Our students could not afford to grab a burger after school. If we didn’t feed them, they did not eat.

I worked for one year in a high school with an open campus at lunch before closing the campus the following year. Apart from the massive safety and security issues schools face with open campuses and open lunch hours, the worst part was how it segregated and divided the students.  The poorest students ate in the cafeteria. That was all they could afford. The middle class students ate at a variety of nearby eateries. A third group of students qualified for the free lunch program but were too proud to eat with the “poor kids.” So, they chose to go hungry. Everyone knew who the poor kids were. It broke my heart!

Jay’s article illustrates the great divide in education. We read constantly about firing principals and closing down underperforming schools with never a mention of the poverty that these schools must help their students overcome. Any principal would rather have their students E-A-T than make AYP.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:44 PM | Permalink

According to a just released national survey, teachers want supportive leadership more than anything else. In fact, by a wide margin, teachers indicated that supportive leadership was more important than higher salaries and pay for performance.

The survey of 40,000 teachers was sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in collaboration with Scholastic, Inc. "We wanted to put teachers' voices front and center in the debate around education reform," said Vicki Phillips, the Gates Foundation's education director. "Teachers are on the front line of this work every day ... it doesn't make sense not to be talking to teachers."

What do teachers want?

- Supportive leadership (68%) more than higher salaries (45%)

- Digital media more than textbooks

- Evaluations based on how much students learn more than on principal evaluations. Only 22% believe that principal evaluations accurately represent their work.

- Salaries more than performance pay.

- The current school year over a longer school day and year. Only 36% favor extending the school year.

Additional findings of the survey include:

- 97% believe that setting high expectations is essential in raising student achievement

- 8% indicated that performance pay was essential.

- 71% believe that monetary rewards will have little or no impact on student achievement

- Also high on the list of essentials were relevant professional development, clean and safe working conditions, time to collaborate, and access to high-quality curriculum.

Conclusions

School leadership is essential to establishing a school climate in which teachers can teach and students can learn. As far as teachers are concerned, the principal is literally the “cork in the bottle.” The principal either makes things happen or prevents them from happening.

If schools want great teachers, they are going to have to have great leaders to support them.

All the money spent on improving teacher training will go for naught if we don’t fund principal development.

It is interesting to note that none of the things that teachers want most--respect, support, clean, safe, and orderly schools—cost anything. The most important things in school really are free. Money cannot buy a culture. Nor, can money buy relationships, trust, or support. School culture is not for sale!

Teachers know what they want, and when they don’t get it, they vote with their feet. They leave the school or they leave the profession. Teachers will simply not work in a school that is not teacher-friendly, and why should they?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:25 PM | Permalink

A friend of mine has a favorite old saying, “Ride the horse in the direction it’s going.” Like most sage advice, it is right almost all of the time. However, when it comes to school reform, I’m getting off the horse, sometimes called school turnaround models. I refer to the four approaches to school reform as the “termination models.” I am dismounting because I can see where this horse is going and I don’t like it. In fact, all school leaders need to get out in front of this horse. Why? If this slash-and-burn approach is being promoted with Recovery funds, why wouldn’t these same provisions be included in the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind? I am betting that they will be in any new legislation and the “terminations” won’t stop with the bottom 2% of schools.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not against firing people who don’t, can’t, or won’t do the job. However, I am about fairness. Fair is training school leaders, giving them quality professional development, making it possible for them to attract and retain top teachers, fully stocking their schools with quality equipment, and using a modern value-added approach to measuring student achievement.

These “termination models” represent an admission of failure—we don’t know how to turn around schools, and we are not willing to find out or ask. All that these models do is buy time.

They are the most recent version of “activity equals success.” I can hear it three years from now, “Look what we did. We implemented all these changes and these schools still didn’t improve.” In the meantime, there will be a lot of bodies of principals and teachers left in the wake and a profession in fear and disarray.

Here is what bothers me most. These approaches are targeted at the poorest schools in the most depressed neighborhoods. In most cases, these schools are merely a reflection of their surroundings. Those who live in these communities often have no voice or are reluctant to speak up. Instead of being a voice for them, these expeditious and short-sighted approaches are punishing them and their schools. Try pulling this stunt with a middle class school that is not performing to expectations.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:27 PM | Permalink

Is firing principals and teachers going to turn around struggling high-poverty high schools? Apparently, President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan do. According to today’s Washington Post it is “the get tough strategy for struggling schools.”

Appearing before an America’s Promise event, President Obama and Secretary Duncan helped to announce the “Grad Nation Campaign,” which calls for “90 percent of today’s fourth-graders to graduate from high school on time.” This campaign is a long-term, responsible approach to solving our dropout problem.

The President seized the opportunity to reiterate his commitment to focusing on the 2,000 lowest performing high schools, the so-called “dropout factories,” many of which are located in urban, high-poverty neighborhoods. He indicated that, in order to access federal funds, states, districts, and schools must choose from four reform models; turnaround, restart, closure, and transformation. According to the Post, “each of the strategies, at minimum, appears to require replacing the principal.”

The “Terminate Model”

- Firing principals and teachers is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. School improvement will only occur in the presence of a change in the culture of the school. Firing creates a culture of fear and intimidation.

- It is easy to tear something down. The hard thing is to build something that lasts. Anyone can say, “It doesn’t work. Let’s fire everybody and start over.” The “terminate them” approach requires no knowledge and no expertise. Anyone with a book of pink slips can do it. It is a quick fix, a rearranging of the furniture.

- I get concerned when a person’s first idea of how to improve anything is to punish or fire people.

- If firing is the key to educational reform, maybe that’s how we can reform health care, fire the doctors and nurses.

- What is the message that we are sending here? We don’t train people. We don’t develop people. We fire them. As one urban superintendent told me repeatedly, “I put them out there, and if they have what it takes, they last. If not, I find someone else.”

First, Fire Them Up

- Instead of firing principals and teachers, why not help them do their jobs? Set them up for success.

- Provide long-term, continuous, and connected training and professional development. Right now, only 2% of available funding is used to train and develop principals.

- It costs more to educate students in high-impact schools. Increase the budget of these schools by at least 10%.

- Provide under-resourced schools with the resources and equipment they need now. Don’t fire the staff and then give the new staff a renovated building filled with new equipment.

- Help these high-poverty schools recruit and retain the most qualified and experienced professionals by providing financial incentives for teachers and principals to work in high-impact schools.

- Provide modern data systems that evaluate schools on a value-added basis that measures individual student progress on an annual basis.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Like many other parts of the country, the Northeast has experienced a particularly harsh winter, which, in many districts has resulted in repeated delays as well as a number of lost school days. Many districts have plans that call for adding missed school days to the end of the school year.

Principals and teachers know all too well that delayed openings and other disruptions to the normal school day make it difficult to keep everyone focused on academics. Today, for example, high winds forced the Fairfax County (Virginia) Public Schools to remove students and teachers from trailers and other temporary classrooms. That means that cafeterias, libraries and auditoriums will be filled with students. It also means that instruction is disrupted in the second or third largest district in the state. It turns out that the number of students receiving instruction in temporary structures in Fairfax County is equal in size to or greater than all but a few districts in the entire state.

While the school year is technically the same number of school days, more of those days now fall after high-stakes state assessments. What impact will that have on academic performance? This year students are losing days and weeks of preparation, not only for state assessments, but also for Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate exams, which are administered in the first week of May.

Attendance is one key factor in raising student achievement. In “Every Minute Counts,” The Teacher Leader provided a poignant illustration of lost time resulting in lower test scores.

“Several years ago I was attending a district-wide department chair meeting and the number one topic was the drop in standardized math scores throughout the district.  For the first time in years instead of rising, the scores were uniformly lower at nearly every school.  Our assignment was to find the cause.  When I returned to school I asked my best Algebra 1 teacher for her explanation.  Without hesitation she responded with one word—“snow”.  The previous year we had unusually bad weather and we missed two weeks of school.   While she had time to cover the material for the test, her normal two-week review period was lost.   With the loss of just ten school days an entire system saw a drop in student scores.”

Under plans currently being implemented, many teachers and principals will be fired because of dropping academic performance due to lost “snow days.” While this is certainly not the intent of the “reform,” the reality is that holding teachers and principals accountable for student achievement is not as simple as some would want us to believe.

For example, in some states, there is absolutely no accountability for students and total accountability for teachers and principals. For students, the state assessments are nothing more than an inconvenience. They are not barriers to graduation. The opposite is true for the educators, their jobs and careers depend on the results. That means that the schools are dependent on the good will of the students. If a student wants to draw pictures on the answer sheet, there is no consequence and the professionals are punished.

Likewise, many states and districts are lax in enforcing attendance laws. The research on dropouts conducted by Bob Balfanz and Nettie Letgers at Johns Hopkins points to student attendance as a prime early indicator of future dropout behavior. They point out that students with a 10% or greater absence rate are more likely to experience academic problems and are much more likely to drop out. Some schools have an overall attendance rate below 90%. That means that the average student would miss 18 days of school per school year. Add to that the two lost weeks of school due to weather, and you have six or more weeks of lost instructional time.

Principals and teachers are frustrated at the dual standard. Hold schools accountable, but do nothing to help them by enforcing existing attendance laws by holding students accountable for test results.

Being a teacher or principal in the Northeast this year could be a recipe for disaster. Get the pink slips ready!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

As earlier reported, Central Falls, Rhode Island, Superintendent, Frances Gallo, had pinks slips placed in the mailboxes of all 74 of the high school’s teachers. According to the news report, Central Fall High School is one of the poorest performing schools in the state, with a less than 50 percent graduation rate. “Supt. Gallo said the teachers would not agree on a plan to fix the struggling school that included a longer school day and tutoring before and after school.” The report indicates that the teachers wanted to be compensated for working extra duties.

The Rest of the Story

In an announcement released today, Rhode Island Education Commissioner, Deborah A. Gist, has given Central Falls Superintendent, Frances Gallo, 120 days to develop a plan to improve Central Falls High School. According to the press release, last week, Gallo submitted a proposal to use the “turnaround” model as the basis for reform of the high school. The “turnaround” model requires replacement of the principal and at least 50 percent of the staff, “a new governance structure, better use of data, expanded learning time, and social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports for students.”

The press release indicated “Following procedures from the U.S. Department of Education, last month the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (RIDE) identified Central Falls High School and five schools in Providence as the persistently lowest-achieving schools in the state. Commissioner Gist ordered Providence and Central Falls to convene an advisory group of community stakeholders and to select for each school one of the four federal models for school reform: turnaround, school closure, restart, or transformation.”

My thoughts:

- Is this the first of many school “terminations” that we will be reading about in the coming months?

- On the surface, it appears much easier to simply use the “termination” or is it the “turnaround” model.

- It is much easier to “terminate” a school that to actually work with the staff to “turnaround” the school. To “turnaround” a school you actually have to know what you are doing. To “terminate” a school, all you need to know how to do is distribute pink slips, and any bureaucrat can do that.

- Instead of “terminating” the school, why not just skip to the good part? Why not give the school the resources that they actually need in order to raise student achievement.

- The only thing that this approach to school improvement does is to single out the poorest schools.

- Not only did 74 teachers get pink slipped, but so did the principal.

- I wonder, where is Central Falls going to find 74 teachers?

- Given the way the terminations were delivered, what teacher or prospective principal would apply to work in that district? Would you advise your son or daughter to apply for a teaching job in that district?

Our school was called by National Geographic Magazine “the most diverse school in America.” We had high poverty and high student mobility. Two-thirds of our students were second language learners (ELL). We didn’t have the highest test scores, but when we used a regression analysis comparing achievement on state exit exams to poverty in our twenty-six high school district, our school was the only outlier. We didn’t have the highest scores, but we were doing the best job with the students we had. I always said that I could take our entire staff and improve even the wealthiest school in the district, but the teachers from the wealthiest school wouldn’t last a day in our school.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Central Falls, Rhode Island, Superintendent, Frances Gallo, had pinks slips placed in the mailboxes of all 74 of the high school’s teachers. According to the report, Central Fall High School is one of the poorest performing schools in the state, with a less than 50 percent graduation rate. “Supt. Gallo said the teachers would not agree on a plan to fix the struggling school that included a longer school day and tutoring before and after school.” The report indicates that the teachers wanted to be compensated for working extra duties.

Reactions:

Shine Those Diamonds - During a visit to our school several years ago, I was asked by a high-ranking U.S. Department of Education official, “Did you have to purge the staff?” I responded with a question, “Have you ever read Acres of Diamonds?” A big smile suddenly appeared on his face. It turns out that he had. Our school improvement efforts were led by a core group of dedicated, highly skilled teacher leaders all of whom had worked 15 or more years in the school. My job as principal was to find the diamonds and let them shine. In other words, I had to set teachers and their students up for success.

Control or Cooperation – In order to raise the achievement of each and every student, we need everyone working together taking ownership of the problems as well as the solutions. After this mass termination, I wonder how anyone will be able to gain the trust of the staff. As I indicated in a previous post, the essential question that every school leader and classroom leader must ask is “Do I want control or cooperation?” The answer to that question creates an intention that drives all future behavior. A school leader or classroom leader who seeks cooperation will think and behave much differently than one who seeks control. I contend that, if one has cooperation, control is unnecessary. However, it is the illusion of control or the fear of losing control that drives many leaders to engage in the kind of close-minded, top-down styles of interacting that erode relationships, stifle dialogue, and connote a lack of respect. Are you willing to give up a little control in order to get more cooperation? Are you willing to spend more time making decisions in order to make better decisions? Are you okay with not knowing all the answers? Are you willing to ask more questions?

The right thing, the right way, for the right reason – Schools become high-performing because they treat other peoples’ children the way that they would want their own children treated. In that same vein, we must treat our teachers the same way that we would want our wives or husbands treated if they were teaching at our school. My wife taught for 30 years and I can tell you that her classroom perspective kept me grounded. I certainly would not want her to receive a pink slip in her mailbox.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:48 AM | Permalink

Sports fans believe in miracles?

Today is the anniversary of the Miracle on Ice. Thirty years ago today, the U.S. Olympic Hockey Team stunned the world with a victory of the powerful Soviet Hockey Team. ESPN named the Miracle on Ice the greatest sports moment of the 1980s. Some equate the victory to “a high school football team beating the Philadelphia Eagles.”

Researchers and physicians believe in miracles?

USA Today reports on recent research findings that indicate “When it comes to the placebo effect, it really may be mind over matter.” Once placed in the same category as magic and hocus pocus, increasing evidence has led researchers to conclude that placebos “have an actual biological effect in the body.”

“The doctor-patient relationship, plus the expectation of recovery, may sometimes be enough to change a patient's brain, body and behavior, experts write.”

The Miracle on Ice and the research on placebos is not as much about the idea of miracles as it is about believing. Simply put, this research tells us that, if we believe that our health will improve, it improves. The question is, is the reverse true? If we have no hope or if we give up hope, does our health deteriorate?

Do educators believe in miracles?

One of my saddest moments in recent memory came last year when I read On the Front Lines of Schools. I have spent the better part of the last decade trying to convince educators what I had learned from my teachers and students--given time, all students can learn and achieve at high levels and, and that despite seemingly insurmountable barriers, teachers, students, and schools can beat the odds.

I knew that we still had work to do. I just didn’t know how much work was yet undone. If someone had asked me, I would have guessed that less than 20% of the teachers and school leaders still held on to old attitudes believing that only a select few students could really be expected to achieve at high levels.

I was stunned when I read the report. In fact, months later, I remain shocked. Apparently, all the talk about high expectations amounts to no more than a waste of time. According to the report, two-thirds of the teachers and two of five principals do not believe that all students can or should be held to high standards. The report concludes that our so-called achievement gap may, in fact, be an expectation gap. We hear about miracles in science, medicine, and sports everyday, yet many educators refuse to believe that our students can learn and achieve at high levels.

Several years ago I had the opportunity to have a private conversation with some high-ranking officials in the U.S. Department of Education on the topic of school reform. I was asked my opinion on what was needed. Without hesitation I told them that, based on my personal experience, unless educators truly believed that students and schools could succeed, it would never happen. Author Michael Fullan agrees. He writes that most educational reforms are short-lived or doomed to failure because they fail to account for the most important, third dimension of change—beliefs. Fullan believes that change is 25% ideas and 75% beliefs.

Implications for school leaders

Based on my conversations over the past five or six years with school leaders from all over the country, I have concluded that raising student achievement is less about what needs to be done and more about how to do it. As it turns out our challenge may be less about our students and more about winning the hearts and minds of our teachers—changing beliefs. Students cannot exceed the quality of their teachers nor will many students exceed their expectations.

I have tremendous confidence in the power of teachers to inspire and motivate students. From my viewpoint, if a teacher does not believe that students can achieve, they won’t.

Who is going to get them to believe?

There are no victims here, only volunteers. School leaders, it is up to us. We are in the position in order to make a difference. We want to offer every student the promise of a quality education and the prospect of a good life. We cannot raise student achievement unless we all believe that we can. We cannot raise student achievement unless we believe that each and every student, if given time, can learn at high levels. In our every waking moment, we must do everything in our power to pass on our unwavering belief in the unlimited potential of our students to our teachers, counselors, administrators, and parents. If we don’t, who will?

Finally, let’s make some minor changes in the USA Today article on placebos to read “the teacher-student relationship, plus the expectation of learning, may be enough to change the student’s brain and behavior.”

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:17 PM | Permalink

According to NPR, Lake Mary High School (FL) principal, Michael Kotkin, was recently informed by attorneys representing Chrysler that his mascot, a ram, was, in fact, not St. Mary’s ram at all. St. Mary’s ram was identical to the Dodge Ram and it was going to have to go.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:25 PM | Permalink

by Mel Riddile

While teachers as a group make the most impact on student achievement, research continues to confirm that the principal is the single, most important individual contributing to student achievement. Ironically, school leaders are the most neglected group in terms of support and training. Yet, principals are the only group in the educational food chain truly being held accountable for student performance.

In an effort to change this situation, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) introduced the School Principal Recruitment and Training Act (S. 2896/H.R. 4354). The bill would fund the creation of a grant program to recruit, support, and prepare principals to improve student academic achievement in high-need schools. Provisions of the bill include:

• A one-year residency
• Focused coursework on instructional leadership, organizational management, and the use of data to inform instruction
• Ongoing support and professional development
• Skills assessment
• Mentoring
• Development of a high-quality evaluation
• Information clearinghouse to facilitate the sharing of best practices
• Development of standards and definitions of principal effectiveness

For more information, see the Principal’s Policy Blog

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:30 PM | Permalink

by Mel Riddile

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:18 AM | Permalink