Few deny that U.S. public schools and districts need better leaders than many of them now have - or that the pressure of NCLB's performance expectations plus the surge of retirements among principals and superintendents will inflame this need in the years ahead. But where to find such people? What to look for? How to prepare them? On what terms to employ them?
This week, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (the Foundation's sister organization) and the Broad Foundation released a bipartisan "manifesto" that answers these urgent questions. Initially signed by 65 prominent educators and policymakers, Better Leaders for America's Schools calls for wholesale changes in how and where our schools and districts seek the leadership they need.
The boldest idea is to stop looking for school leaders only within the ranks of veteran educators. In today's environment, what matters most is that they be effective executives.
Bold, yes, but also commonsensical. The quest for leadership is not a function of ideology or politics but of supply and demand on the one hand, and organizational/regulatory arrangements on the other. The manifesto's signers come from many directions, including the education field, but they all agree that the schools and districts in greatest need of first-rate leadership are more apt to get it if they broaden the search.
We made a breakthrough two decades back when our idea of the principal's role evolved from "building manager" to "instructional leader." Today, however, we understand that, while schools still need instructional leadership - people expert in teaching, learning, curriculum, and assessment - that capability need not sit at the principal's desk. Just as some major districts (e.g., New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Jacksonville) have engaged non-educators to lead them, trusting these astute executives to include top-flight instructional leaders on their teams, so, too, should individual schools develop leadership teams. Private and charter schools already do this - and are free to engage strong leaders, regardless of their backgrounds. Let the principal ensure that the school has the instructional leadership it needs but think of the principal him/herself as CEO of a multi-million dollar public enterprise, responsible for personnel, budgeting, and political and community relations - but above all for forging an organization that can successfully meet the expectations set by federal and state standards and accountability systems.
That's more than a one-person job. Today's term of art is "distributed leadership." It means the school's essential needs can be met by a team working together. Yes, that's harder to accomplish in a small school - though there are plenty of small schools where a veteran teacher doubles as vice principal and instructionally leads the whole team. It's definitely possible. Read the profiles of Vanessa Ward and Jennifer Henry in Better Leaders for illustrations of people from non-teaching backgrounds who are successful school leaders.
Once you acknowledge that a principal or superintendent need not be an education expert or teacher, everything else changes: how they're identified, where they're recruited and screened, how they're prepared, how (if at all) they are "certified" by the state, how their jobs are described, and their terms of employment. The new manifesto casts a wide net, looking for personal attributes and track records that match the needs of a particular school while slashing state certification to a minimum and making districts responsible for tailoring the new leader's training to his/her own circumstances (and obtaining that training from lots of places, not just ed schools).
Equally important, the manifesto's signers believe these leaders must be empowered as executives, with authority equal to their responsibility, including control over personnel, budget and program. Their pay needs to improve, too, to make these jobs attractive for first-rate leaders with many alternatives. (The manifesto calls for principals' salaries up to $180,000.)
Today's system of recruiting, training, and employing school leaders is simply not equal to the leadership demands that we face. It's also full of ironies, such as over-production of educators who acquire principals' licenses but don't intend to use them. Famine amidst plenty describes today's supply and demand (and quantity-quality) imbalance. We learn this from a survey of current state certification practices conducted by Emily Feistritzer and the National Center for Education Information. A summary of these findings appears in the manifesto and the details can be found at http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=1#791.
Also published with the manifesto are profiles of six accomplished education leaders who emerged via non-traditional routes. They exemplify the kinds of people that signers hope will enter the field. Nobody argues that the education profession does not produce fine leaders or that the country should hire people only from unusual backgrounds. Rather, we say that such paths are worth exploring, especially where the demand for top-notch leaders exceeds the supply.
Nor is this pie in the sky. Besides the living examples in the manifesto and the precedents of private and charter schools, we can glimpse a wave of interest in the recruitment and deployment of unconventional school leaders. Such programs as "New Leaders for New Schools," the preparation of founder/leaders for the KIPP schools, and the Broad Residency in Urban Education are cutting such pathways through the education forest. Recent months have also brought a gusher of studies, reports, and proposals from other scholars (e.g., Mark Tucker, Rick Hess) and organizations (e.g., the Wallace-Reader's Digest Funds, the Center on Reinventing Public Education) that focus on what's lacking in the traditional pipeline and suggest alternatives to it.
Sure, it will be controversial. Education change always is. But aside from teacher quality, the make-or-break challenge for a country seeking to boost student achievement and school performance will be the leaders it installs in those schools. If we seek them only in the same old places, we're not likely to find leaders better than those we have today. Some will be terrific, of course, but we need thousands more. So let's open the doors and invite many more people to enter. That's not politics or ideology at work. It's common sense. Want to join us? Sign the manifesto at http://www.edexcellence.net/template/page.cfm?id=271.
Better leaders for America's schools: a Manifesto, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, May 2003
"Schools seen facing 'leadership famine,'" by George Archibald, Washington Times, May 21, 2003
"Revamp rules for choosing administrators, study urges," by Scott Stephens, Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 20, 2003
"Center calls for school changes," by Selicia Kennedy-Ross, San Bernardino Sun, May 19, 2003
