Comments on: Not enough school administrators are visionaries?

By: Tina

Tina — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

In regard to M Campbell… I agree in education students are often considered a Ford.
The goal should be, as and educational administrator, to be perhaps ‘THe Great Communicator’. Just another attribute to aspire to. With charismatic leaders (which I agree with Marshal that it is difficult to be an administrator that is not charismatic) and perhaps flamboyant communication, administrators may turn the public,teachers,and politicians from thinking of students as Fords and rather ‘The Future’. The vision is how to pull this all together and that is what educational leadership is about.

By: M Campbell

M Campbell — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

This very nice “talk” about students being a different kind of product from a Ford is hiding a nasty truth about American public school education that not many people get to see. At certain levels of administration, the student IS a Ford and they are discussed like Fords and organized like Fords and tested like Fords and treated in every way like Fords.

This “line” reminds me of the nice talk we get from the publishing industry and media that insist some separation of editorial from advertising exists. What a lot of bunk.

Same thing as the fictional “separation of church and state.” Why do we actually believe people when they say this stuff?

By: Marshall

Marshall — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Ok, now I understand it…after reading again the post and responses above (sarcasm warning) it makes sense why so many people are clamoring to be in administration.
Not only do they need to be “innovative, instructionally-driven, student-focused, respected by colleagues, and above all, reflective,” and “must be willing to roll up the sleeves and work on the daily struggles of the building (staff issues, student issues, parent issues, building issues, accountability issues, you get the idea!….) while also finding time to be reflective (learn a new language, publish, present at conferences, learn/shadow/PLC with a peer/ fellow-principal, and push him/her-self to constantly grow,” according to billsterrett.
These people also see the needs that Tom identifies, in order to “”keep their heads above water.” A better system needs to be developed to allow principals to spend more time in their buildings, in the halls, and to allow them to work with teachers to plan and implement effective teaching and learning strategies.” With some of the ideas noted solely in this posting, we have also identified that there is a desire for strong leadership to step up and take risks (and obviously the slings and arrows that accompany that concept) while realizing that, “Politically governed bureaucracies don’t reward strong approaches,” according to Michael Umphrey.
Ok, so we have clearly identified that there is a need for some backbone and confidence and an ability to stand on an island with some level of confidence while critics throw stones.
Yet let’s not be flamboyant or charismatic (according to Dan Winters’ “no thanks”) in our efforts to be forward thinking and support professionalism. Personally, I don’t see how anyone can do this without being charismatic (unless we simply dismiss Bob Sutton’s No Asshole Rule) – and if they can, then I’ll ABSOLUTELY live with flamboyant.
So…all of you aspiring administrators, please come on in…the water’s fine.

By: Dan Winters

Dan Winters — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

No thanks to the flamboyant, charismatic leader. If you read the Economist article comments, they are heavily leaning in opposition to Schumpeter’s conclusions about the benefits of the flamboyant visionary. Having read Bob Sutton’s The No Asshole Rule, I would much rather start the foundation for strong leadership with integrity and humility and see where that gets us. This is the same conclusion that Jim Collins came to in Good to Great. Schools need competent, forward thinking leaders who invest in the professionalism of their colleagues for student gains. The ends do not justify the means.

By: Charlie A. Roy

Charlie A. Roy — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

@Scott
Selling anyone on change is a difficult task. Many are heavily invested in the current system and find it comfortable. Those who see the merits of the change can only see them as “potential” benefits. But alas leadership means bringing meaningful change. In grad school it was argued very frequently that you could have a bad school with a good principal but never a good school with a bad principal. The idea was the good principal would help the bad school become better. If you put together a list of the most progressive high performing high schools in the country what would be the common factor? If it is leadership then by all means lets put our energy and efforts into quality school leadership programs and compensate these people well for what they do.

By: Michael Umphrey

Michael Umphrey — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Politically governed bureaucracies don’t reward strong approaches. It’s not just NCLB. There’s no real analog to business, where you can develop a new product or service, raise the money for it, figure out the marketing and then, if it works–with “works” defined as lots of people of their own free will choosing to purchase it with their own dollars.

In education, lots of different groups have the power to kill things: unions, factions in the community, board members who run in opposition to school leaders, legislative committees. Nobody has power to pull untangle the knot of organizations who have a stake in the status quo.

Freedom works.

By: billsterrett

billsterrett — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Today's principal needs to be innovative, instructionally-driven, student-focused, respected by colleagues, and above all, reflective about his/her work as a leader. The term "lifelong learner" is as important as any other leadership trait and the administrator must be willing to roll up the sleeves and work on the daily struggles of the building (staff issues, student issues, parent issues, building issues, accountability issues, you get the idea!....) while also finding time to be reflective (learn a new language, publish, present at conferences, learn/shadow/PLC with a peer/ fellow-principal, and push him/her-self to constantly grow. The building leader must also be a forceful advocate for his/her school or organization. Thriving as a learning leader in an increasingly "flat" world is not for the faint of heart, but it can be incredibly rewarding and insightful. A few shameless plugs for my previous thoughts on this subject from Principal and Ed Leadership: Reflection in this role: http://www.naesp.org/resources/1/Principal/2008/M-Jp64.pdf Working in a colleague "PLC": http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/oct09/vol67/num02/The_Power_of_Two.aspx

By: Marshall

Marshall — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

First, congratulations to Scott for a post that has heart and has clearly fired up a few emotions – some of the best responses I’ve read for a while. Mostly I do agree, by the way, that our challenges are different. Again, not a reason to quit or shy away from the challenge, but we do need to look at what our obstacles are when leading.

Secondly we need to look to the heart of what Scott intended (at least my interpretation) as these were pioneers in the field. They didn’t remodel something or tweak it generally, they forged into something new. Several of the inferences above noted that concept and DI has covered the thought before too. Some of the challenge seems to be the “what can keep your job vs. what can make a difference” battle that has to have some level of support out there. Being innovative may mean that you are ahead of your “bosses” and may see the same result as noted above with a young and “uncreative” Walt Disney. Changing some of what we do isn’t really innovation – starting over is.

By: Teach_J

Teach_J — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Too many administrators have stopped thinking about students and teachers. All they see are test scores, drop out rates and attendance percentages. In other words all they see is NCLB.

The money behind NCLB, especially at Title I schools outweighs everything else. Principals who don’t meet the NCLB metrics are fired or reassigned to asst. community relations or some such useless position.

Teaching, learning and any other beneficial thing is relegated to last place behind meeting the NCLB standards. So there is no room, time or money left to be bold.

By: Brumbaugh

Brumbaugh — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

I am aspiring to move into a position where I could be a visionary leader in a High School, since I believe it is in High School where students learn to be independent and work through issues on their own. I was a Tech Coordinator at a high school and for the entire district and had road block after road block thrown in my way when I tried to innovate. I was one of the first GCT’s (Google Certified Teachers) and I was able to do some things working within the system, but it was tough sledding and the rate of change was glacial in speed. This became my motivation to move into Administration.

I am in my second year as a High School Administrator, after spending 20 years in the classroom and I am making a bit more change than I was able to do when I was the Tech Coordinator: 1:1 initiatives, campus-wide wireless connections, Google Apps for the entire school and increased bandwidth for the school site. These changes will definitely change the way kids will be “doing school.” I also know that I won’t be able to transform the entire system until I am the Principal of the school. This is what I aspire to and I hope that I will be able to do so in the next few years.

When that happens… watch out!

Happy Thanksgiving All.