By Steve Peha
Do you ever wonder who really runs a given school or district? I do.
And I’m in them all the time. For all the sound and fury of testing and
standards, what we have achieved is an ineffective accountability
system that is at best a pale form of collective wrist slapping, where
entire schools must fail for many years before any action is taken —
and even then, this action rarely addresses the root causes of failure.
When most people think of accountability in the workplace, I believe
they think of personal accountability: How well do I do my job? What
does my boss think? What are my responsibilities and how effectively do
I deal with them?
But this is not the way it is in the culture of most public school systems.
At the top of the food chain, we often find a superintendent who
makes few public statements, rarely takes specific positions on
important issues, sets few if any goals and generally leaves the
administrative workings of the district to others in the district
office.
For their part, assistant superintendents, some of whom have direct
management responsibility for principals, also engage in a fair amount
of reverse buck passing. Other than “get those test scores up,”
meaningful oversight of principals is often minimal.
In many schools where I have worked, principals are typically on
their own to do more or less what they want. As long as suspensions are
low and teacher grievances even lower, principals often are given wide
latitude as to how they run their buildings. Sadly, most fail to take
advantage of that to their students’ advantage.
With direct oversight of teachers, principals are the critical
fulcrum point in the system. Principals with the skill and the will to
make substantive changes can quickly turn around failing schools. But
without meaningful personal accountability to their superiors, few
principals feel it is worth the risk of upsetting a teacher (or a
powerful parent) to do what needs to be done.
Recent Comments