Biggest problem/issue facing the future of the City Schools: human capital development - both recruitment and retention. The person that can solve this problem deserves a Nobel peace prize. Until then, we need to keep trying with what we've got as we move towards the most effective structure possible.

I agree with Bill that the person who can solve this deserves a Nobel Peace Prize and that the development of human capital is the essential missing component. Its mind-numbingly challenging.

What I do think the report mentioned above does suggest, whatever the partisan leanings of this AYC group, is that the Alonso administration values ideology over experience.

While I am not familiar with the intricacies of New Leaders for New Schools training, I am comfortable making the conjecture that Alonso agrees with their ideological approach to governance if he is trying to populate a great deal of schools in the city with those leaders.

Its too early to really suggest that the leaders sprung from that program are ineffective leaders. There needs to be a body of long-term empirical data to make that statement, but I do think it hints to something that is potentially suggestive of Alonso's administration.

Ideology trumps experience. If politics is any example (and I dare this administration is extremely conscious of its political construction), that is a very dangerous tight rope to walk. Ideologues are a dangerous mix of hubris and myopia that this city cannot afford to have running its schools.

There is a sad legacy of ineffective leadership in this city and I applaud the effort to get a more diverse group of leaders placed in challenging schools, but I fear that the long-term data has the potential to perpetuate and even further deepen the ineffective school-based leaders in this city.

David I am extremely interested in your last statement. Will you elaborate?

AT-

My first statement is a reflection of the state of our schools-from graduation rates to crumbling infrastructure to community disengagement. While the reasons for those failings are more complex than failed leadership at North Ave., they own part of it. While I am not generally the loudest trumpeter of Alonso, I think he is the first leader to take his role as school and community leader with extreme urgency and a "no excuses on our end" culture. That I applaud.

The second part of my last statement suggests the potential for the new leaders placed by Alonso to have a heady and nearly impossible task. School-based leadership has clearly failed in the eyes of Alonso's. I base that statement on his replacement rate of principals since he has been here as well as his extensive use of New Leaders for New Schools. That clearly suggests a failure of school-based leadership in his eyes.

As for the long-data conjecture, my fear is that by placing these "green" leaders in challenging schools, Alonso has the potential to shoot himself in the foot. He wants new leaders in schools that previously had ineffective leaders, but the potential (and emphasis on potential) exists for an even deeper hole than existed before.

The AYC data is suggesting, in the short term, that these new leaders are not that successful in transforming schools. What I was saying is that the long-term data has the potential to suggest that the status quo of ineffective school-based leadership will continue because of the hurdles suggested in the original blog entry.

All this being said, I am by no means suggesting that this is a blanket statement. There are effective school-based leaders in this city performing transformative acts, and I applaud them. Genuinely. I hope only the best for them and their students.

I hope that is a sufficient elaboration. :)

Thanks for paying to this study. Advocates for Children and Youth is very supportive of increased responsibility for school principals. We only point out that some principals may need some support to take full advantage of their autonomy. We found this out the hard way in the 1980s.

Also, we have identified an existing source of funding for financial incentives for principals--state grants that previously went for low-performing schools but now just pay for general operating expenses in some school districts. When times are tight, tough budget decisions are needed, and it is better to use this money to bring the best principals to the most challenging schools.

David:

I am not sure that I see the information that ACY presented in the same way - maybe Matthew can shed more light on this (how's you sister Matthew?). The way I see it, they are saying that of the experienced principals, only 3 of these had a track record of improvement. What they are also saying is that the others have no track record. I am not sure what ACY thinks of this issue except what Matthew said which was that they may need more support.

One of the things that seems clear is that AAA believes in holding leaders (and others) accountable. I know that even for those without a positive track record, the whole picture has changed now that FSF is in place and I believe that more changes are coming.

I personally think that it is easier to zero base a failing school and have a total change in structure and leadership and everything else than it is to fix a failing school. I wonder if having these less experienced leaders in place might actually improve outcomes for kids. I wonder this because of the ability for many of these new leaders to set a vision for their schools when creating new schools. Because of the ability to attract staff who understand and have buy-in to that vision, and the ability to shape professional development in the direction of that vision.

Just some thoughts.

Basically, our CEO and his team will have to differentiate their support to the principals. It can not be a one size fits all approach. And though, on many occasions I have tended to disagree or question the actions taken by this leadership it seems that ideologically our desire for change and drastically improved outcomes for children are aligned.

Of course we should hold principals, and everyone else invested in the lives of children, accountable. But will the principals receive the support they need? I wonder how they are being supported to take full advantage of their autonomy right now? Does anyone care to comment on that? Bill?

And IO, it is not enough to attract the 'right' people. It is also vitally important to identify and retain the right people. There are many who were waiting for just this type of transformational leadership so that the execution of inefficient and ineffective policies and practices that oft times characterized previous city school history could be ceased. In our hearts, we want Alonso to succeed because we think we know what his success will mean for children.

And we need him to succeed because his failure would be crushing for all of us.

And I totally agree about retention of excellent people, and of training of excellent people and the need for differentiation of support for ALL people.

A few quick observations:

(1) I reviewed the "technical appendix" from the "study." Honestly, this should NEVER qualify as a legitimate "study." They did little to NO critical analysis whatsoever. The group doesn't spend a single sentence explaining the data. For the several principals whose scores went down - the fact that they went down is NOT in and of itself a justifiable critique. We have to know whether the student population changed, we need a more historical viewpoint, we need to know whether any new programs were offered at the school, we have to see whether partnerships were lost or gained, etc. The ACY has really turned me off to its organizational integrity. This "study" is a weekend endeavor that someone could perform in an afternoon. In fact, I bet my former high school students could have taken this research method on as a unit project and come up with more accurate data.

(2) What's more embarrassing for ACY are the org's dismal, unimaginative, and contradictory recommendations to address the org's "findings" (I'll continue to use quotation marks to reiterate my sincere disappointment in the validity of this "study"). Recommendations 2 (train asst. principals more effectively), 3 (provide better tracking for inexperienced principals), and 4 (develop a leadership pool), contradict the "report's" purpose. If the "study" is purported to demonstrate a lack of experience among principals for turning around schools... don't finish by concluding that we should be putting more non-principals in principal positions, or training them ahead of time. Fine, tracking is needed, I'll give you that. But, a meaningful solution would involve recruiting proven principals from OUTSIDE OF THE DISTRICT (because they clearly don't work here, or else they'd be the principals being appointed).

(3) The intentions were fine in undertaking this "study," but it provides absolutely nothing new. The recommendations are unbelievably vague. Please, ACY, spend your resources, financial and time, more efficiently and effectively. Please tell us HOW to implement your "findings." Everyone knows there's not enough experience in urban system leadership. Additionally, if you're going to produce a "study" then do some more critical evaluation of the data behind your research model. For the 30+ principals that don't have experience turning around schools, maybe one of them turned around a private company. Maybe another was an Army or Navy General. Just because someone hasn't turned around a school doesn't mean he or she isn't forever unqualified to turn around a school - the logical fallacy behind such an assertion is completely bogus. Maybe someone is a terrible elementary school principal, but in middle school he/she is incredible. The "study" didn't even attempt to look at these types of collateral but meaningful statistics or possibilities.

(4) I recognize that this post is a bit more aggressive than I had anticipated. However, people will cite this "study" with confidence that Dr. Alonso has made or is making poor choices. The lack of intellectual integrity behind this "study" leads to dubious conclusions (like the one I just made in the prior sentence). Dr. Alonso clearly wants to put great people in leadership roles. The problem now is that great people are not necessarily applying to become principals. Yes, there are a number of great principals out there, and undoubtedly some of these new appointments will become great principals. However, the human capital recruitment issue is the critical mass component that's completely ignored by ACY. They mention "incentives" vaguely, but they fail to consider whether the incentives are legal, whether the needed population of potential principals will be attracted by monetary incentives alone (consider TFA - high-achieving college grads not becoming teachers because of the money, primarily), whether these payments are sustainable in the current economic climate (state grants are getting cut like the plague), and a host of other important considerations. ACY, it's very easy to complain (especially when one doesn't fully investigate one's research model), but this system needs help with solutions, not identifying problems that we already know exist.

(5) To AT - The current technical assistance is not enough for principals right now. There's A LOT of responsibility on their plate, and guidance may be a bit behind the ball. Again, more needs to be done (the human capital issue is not constrained to the principal-level alone). There are great people working in North Ave/administration, but more can and will be done. Lasting change takes at least 10 years. We're in year 0.8 of these reforms. Things will be hectic, but the ball is rolling in the right direction. I wish there were a magic wand to wave, but there's not. However, principals make over $100,000 a year for the most part. We're not talking about a minimum wage job here. That's a lot of money, and with a lot of money comes a lot of responsibility. A significant number of principals (still making this salary) don't know how to use the internet correctly and are completely baffled by an excel file. FSF is a new funding model based on school-based budgeting and online submission. Were I making $100,000+/yr and saw that my technical skills were lacking, I'd probably try to sign up for some classes at BCCC on my own to get myself up to speed. If not classes, I'd seek out teachers and paras in the school who could effectively help me through this process. I wouldn't sit back and complain about how I'm not trained well enough. To continually rely on the district is not a sign of effective school leadership. The guidance certainly could be lacking, but that doesn't excuse principals. There are a good number of new and experienced principals who are loving and effectively using the new funding/administrative procedures. This is evidence that it can be done. Sometimes, I just want to scream, "Stop making excuses and get the work done." But, of course, that's not permitted, nor effective.

And, most importantly, as I heard this weekend while grading papers with a fantastic social studies teacher at Poly, "You can only eat an elephant one bite at a time."

"Idealogy trumps experience." This reads remarkably close to Richard Allington's book Big Brother and the National Reading Curriculum: How idealogy trumped evidence.

Serious? The only support I get comes in the form of people trying to save their jobs. They show up and audit a process and tell me the same thing I told them before they started. Then they are nice enough to write it up and turn it in as a days work. The kids are rough, teachers take effort, but the system kills me. Get a principal off the record and they will tell you this place is a mess and we're treated like trash. Every meeting has at least a dozen threats about being replaced. If it wasn't for my kids and the team at the school I would be gone. I don't know how to survive this insanity.

Career Builder: I know you may have a truly legitimate reason for saying that the support is only from people trying to save their jobs but I want you to think about the last time you ever truly did something self-less or self-sacrificing. As altruistic as I strive to be, I always fall short. We all do. From the day we scream coming out of the womb we begin practicing how to get what we need or want in exchange for what we have to offer.

North Ave folks-even the bright and shiny ones brought on by the new administration- feel like pariahs in the schools right now.

If everyone is going around feeling like "this place is a mess and we're treated like trash" from the school level to the board room level then we have REALLY got a problem.

AT--
I can only imagine what it is like to be a principal in BCPSS or anywhere else in MD for that matter. They are told that certain things have to happen, that certain goals have to be met, and then essentially told do it on your own. There are lots of good, intellectual people in the system with great ideas who refuse to apply to be a principal because they see what happens to principals in a short period of time. I myself have the credentials to become a principal--have had for a number of years--but not here and not in this climate. Every "different, creative" idea that I have expressed over the years has been shot down or attacked by procedural things coming from North Avenue and yes, by those nice well-meaning people who do reports and nothing else. Maybe starting from scratch is the answer but that would require someone with political clout and fortitude--not even Alonzo can manage that.

Careerbuilder:

I feel you on a lot of this stuff - many at North Ave. are still stuck in the compliance mode of doing things and not the support mode. It's time for those people to be gone. Sending out tables that need filling out with the same information (that could be gotten from some data base at North Ave.) and demanding that it gets turned in 24 hours from now OR ELSE isn't professional development or support any more than handing out a worksheet to a group of students is teaching. It is, however, covering your butt (insert your own word here) and job security as you have already mentioned. And this is the stuff that AAA needs to hear so he can do something about it. complaining about his lack of action while not actually telling him is silly and unprofessional. He has meetings, he reads his own emails, he responds personally (I know since I have had some nice exchanges with him and seen how he takes things on). Again, don't say that the new way of doing things doesn't work if you haven't tried it. It's the same with the mandatory meetings that are still held. What would happen if people didn't go? What would happen if people said enough? What would happen if people made their own needs known and asked for specific assistance? What would happen if people reached out to colleagues when they needed new ideas or support? Well, we might be acting like grownups (and like we expect students to act).

Good luck to all:-)