Perusing last week's Education Week, I came across this article summarizing a qualitative study conducted by Public Agenda on school leadership. The study, funded by the Wallace Foundation, essentially found principals landing in one of two camps--they were either "copers" or "transformers." The copers, as the name implies, were barely keeping up with the day-to-day demands of running a school; they were in put-out-the-fire mode 24/7. But frankly, the "transformer" group was hardly that transformative. We're told they
talked about specific changes they were making now or planned to make in the near future. This year, introduce the new reading curriculum. Next year, get a teaching coach for math. Some had scanned their teacher rosters and pinpointed the teachers they wanted to move out. Maybe it couldn't be done in one fell swoop, but they had their plans.
Since when is simply having a plan, any plan, transformative? And is introducing a reading curriculum, or getting a math coach a transformative plan? (Ridding bad teachers, maybe...) But seriously, are our expectations for principals really that low? It is it too much to expect that all principals--not just "transformers"--will have the "can do" attitude that the author praises? That they'll have a vision beyond implementing a patchwork of programs?
No one's saying that being a principal in a failing school is a walk in the park. What we are saying is that principals in failing schools should think outside the educational straitjacket. David Whitman, in fact, recently profiled some dynamic schools and principals who have plans way beyond hiring next year's math coach.
An online dictionary defines transformation this way: "to metamorphose; as, a caterpillar is ultimately transformed into a butterfly." If our school leaders don't start thinking beyond the science curriculum adoption or the bell schedule, our kids won't be breaking out of their cocoons anytime soon.
Photo by Flickr user bestrated.
