Linda O’Neal, Ed.D.

ASU Box 32086

Boone, NC  28608-2086

(828) 262-8686

fax: (828) 262-6035

[email protected]

 IT TAKES A WHOLE VILLAGE…

Reflections from my career about school leadership…

                It takes a whole village to raise a high performing school, but where are the villagers?  “Educational accountability has changed nearly everything.  Superintendents and local school boards no longer can be satisfied with principals who simply place teachers in the classrooms, provide textbooks and get students to attend school.  Increasingly, schools and school leaders are being judged on their progress in teaching most students to the standards that only the “best students” were expected to meet in the past.  This means that future school leaders must have in-depth knowledge of curriculum, instruction and student achievement.” (Bottoms, 2001)

                This statement is absolutely true, yet something is missing.  How is the principal going to achieve this?  How are leaders moving from intention to skill to application?  Literature reviews delineate the research on skills and dispositions of principals in high performing schools.  There are clearly hero/heroine principals who can attain this laudable status.  We have stories of schools where the principals have achieved this high quality of instructional focus.  But for the entire student population of America, these remarkable success stories are too isolated to be enough to serve all of America’s schools.  My experience over a thirty-five year career in education is that principals cannot do this alone.  We need everyone who touches education deeply committed to serving the personnel who are in the schools serving the students. This includes central office, regional education centers, professional organizations, universities, foundations and policy makers. It takes a whole village to raise a high performing school, but where are all the villagers?

                For example, the premise that leadership resides in one person is no longer apropos because there are no simple best decisions. Leadership is no longer characterized by applying rules that worked in the past. The age of the single, great lone leader has passed into a new age where dialogue, collaboration and cross-perspectives are more important than ever (Drath, 2000).   Leaders are facing extremely complex challenges.  A complex challenge requires immediate action where there are few precedents nor prescriptive answers. Current leadership issues have novelty that no one has faced before.  Remember Columbine and September 11th.   The context changed dramatically and became the dominant factor with multiple issues: physical, mental, emotional and psychological.  The image of the leader as a single, dominant figure broadens to encompass many people sharing leadership across perspectives to reach common goals.  Leaders have to weave disparate variables together and react within seconds.  In such cases, the whole village must rally, work together and address these complex issues that used to be very uncommon, but now occurs all too frequently in schools.

But on a daily basis there is the compelling question:  How is the whole village  affiliated with education championing teaching and learning?  In my classes preparing future principals and superintendents, there are devoted, competent and passionate school administrators.  They are eager to continue growing and learning, but when pressed with the myriad tasks of school management, they feel overwhelmed.  The unfortunate saying among those that are currently assistant principals is “buses, butts (meaning discipline, not literally corporal punishment) and books”.   Their absolute intent is to consistently put top priority on teaching and learning, but feel stymied about how to do all that is currently expected.  Where are the villagers?  At a Policy Think Tank on the principalship (NASSP, 2000), the concluding thought after three days of intense reflection was that so much had been put on the principals’ plate that the position had simply become too much as it is currently designed.

                In my work with practicing administrators in Texas and at the Center for Creative Leadership and the school administrators they serve nationwide, the theme is repeated….school administration has never been more demanding. Administrators’ days are filled with scheduling, reporting, handling relations with parents and the community, and dealing with multiple crises and unique situations that are constant in schools. The principal must take care of critical issues like school safety, yet still be the champion of learning.  The recent excellent literature review by Southern Regional Education Board (SREB, 2001) calls for the principal to be thought of as the chief executive officer of teaching and learning, but doesn’t tell us how to accomplish this in today’s context.  

                My belief is that the path forward is to look at the wisdom in the systems thinking approach (Senge, 2000).  This approach models living systems and the connectedness of the individual parts and the whole.  It’s like a mobile, where you cannot move a single part without impacting the whole.  The consistent interdependence of all the players in living systems is amplified.  Leaders are trying to create learning organizations.  They are trying to respond quickly to the external changes and think more creatively about the future.  They are trying to build authentic relationships.  The principal is one very significant player in the system. But there are many other key interdependent players from policy makers to central administration, university preparation programs, professional associations, state agencies and businesses.  It takes all of these key players working in concert to support a high performing school.  This is the possible cast of villagers.  It is not enough to produce more research telling what the isolated hero/heroine singular principals should be doing.  We need to bridge the gap between systems theory with the cohesive practice of the whole village.

                Where are there examples of whole villages that are deeply supporting the principal and teachers in teaching and learning?  The most compelling example is the work in District 2, New York City School.  There Elaine Fink, superintendent has been working for 11 years using a nested learning communities concept.  At the heart of the concept is the practice of how teachers are expected to learn from principals and professional developers and from one another within their school; at the same time, principals are expected to learn from the superintendent, the deputy, and one another how to be more effective instructional leaders.  Fink believes that building an effective community of principals is about two things:  the craft of teaching and learning and the building of strong interpersonal relationships.  District 2 builds a system wide pattern of improvement in teaching and learning through a series of monthly principals’ conferences, along with specialized training institutes to ensure that its leaders share a common view of the kind of learning environments and opportunities that its schools should be providing.  The superintendent and deputies run support groups for small groups of principals.  Each group focuses on some specific need identified either by the superintendent and deputies or by the principals.  The system has a distinctive feature of individualized coaching that is lodged at the highest level of district administration: with the superintendent and deputy.  The message of this organizational decision is clear. Instruction and learning are the district’s fundamental business: all other functions are secondary. (Fink and Resnick, 2001).  This village includes the superintendent and central office, who are the villagers in closest proximity to the principals, and thus have constant opportunities to provide significant levels of support.

                Another compelling example of such village effort is the Department of Defense (DOD) schools.  Their students outscore their public school peers on standardized tests, regardless of race, family income and parents’ educational levels (Videro, 2001).  A yearlong study by the Peabody Center for Education Policy at Vanderbilt looked at the 1998 test results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a congressionally mandated exam popularly called the Nation’s Report Card, and the SAT college entrance exam.  The success of the elementary and secondary schools on military bases---70 in the USA and 157 overseas---comes despite many of the same issues that public schools cite when struggling with low test scores: high student mobility rates and homes with higher-than-average rates of alcoholism, domestic abuse and violence.  These schools serve about 112,000 students.  About 40% of the students are minority.  But unlike most regular public schools, military bases form natural communities with common areas for shopping and recreation, enabling teachers and parents “to see each other at school, but also out in the community.” Military commanders can offer schools a wide range of help—not the least of which is a standing order to personnel that their place of duty during parent-teacher conference time is at their children’s schools. When I worked at one of these schools and needed parent involvement and was not getting it, I could ask for help from the military parent’s supervisor.  Military parents understood that chain of command and were really cooperative. Other examples of this support include assigning each school a military partner.  The division assigned to the school can help with technology, field days, playground construction, and demonstrations.  The culture has coherence, connectivity and accountability. “There’s a unique culture in our schools that sets us apart,” says Joe Tofoya, the director of the DOD Education Activity.  DOD schools are “a model”, says John Jennings, director of the Center of Education Policy, a public school advocate (Henry, 2001).

How are colleges of education becoming part of this village effort?  An example of rethinking support for campus leaders is the Southern Regional Education Board’s Educational Leadership Preparation University Network. “The goal of this new program is to design, deliver and evaluate a school leader program that emphasizes the critical success factors for comprehensive school improvement and for higher student learning that can be adopted by other educational programs,” said Mark Musick, SREB president.  The multiyear program recently was awarded a $3 million grant from Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund’s Leaders Count initiative, which is designed to address the national challenge of improving educational leadership in order to increase student achievement.  Each participating university will be expected to design a preparation program for school leaders that is linked tightly to a comprehensive school-improvement framework and to state accountability standards. (SREB, 2001)  Thus, this initiative brings higher education into the village with an organized, systemic effort.

                These are relevant examples of substantive efforts to support the work of developing high performing schools. These examples embody the interdependence and cohesiveness of systems thinking. These are positive stories of the whole village commitment that give us role models.

Several award winning principals that I have the pleasure to support came back from a conference very excited.  They had heard the following story and it had spoken to them profoundly.  Principals go to school each day juiced up like a ripe plum.  All day long one problem after another demands their attention.  Each problem is analogous to taking a sip from the juicy plum.  By the end of the day they feel like dry desiccated prunes.  The compelling question is:  will the village juice the plum?  Can the village support and collaborate with principals and their campuses to achieve teaching and learning distinctions.  Can we all be juice givers?

What does giving juice look like?  Penny Simone, who was to be my new leader at a regional education center serving fifty school districts, put it eloquently.  During our meetings to introduce the work to me, she said, “Listen deeply to the principals and teacher leaders.  Hear what it is they want to accomplish, but don’t have the time and resources to make these ideas come true.  Help them get these ideas implemented. That is the nature of our servant work.  We support schools.”

A publication released by National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP, 2001) recognizes the ever-expanding responsibilities that school principals have.  The book Leading Learning Communities: What Principals should know and Be Able To Do issues a Call to Action, describing 10 ways for school districts, states, and the federal government to offer improved support for schools principals.  NAESP calls on policymakers to improve working conditions in the schools; provide the support, funds, and flexibility for alternative leadership arrangements; demand greater accountability within established frameworks; and recognize and reward principals through a national certification process. NAESP calls on superintendents and state education officials to give principals the kind of support and latitude they need by forcing dramatic changes in principal-preparation programs, which are often conducted by college instructors clueless about how to be academic leaders; giving principals options for passing some administrative duties to lead teachers and guidance counselors; and establishing mentoring programs for principals.

The lesson:  Principals need authority and training if schools are expected to make progress toward world-class standards envisioned back in 1989 when the nation’s governors gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia to launch what became the national school-reform movement (“Principal educators”, 2001).  Principals need all of us involved in education to be part of the village that raises high performing schools.

References

Bottoms, G. (April, 2001). What school principals need to know about curriculum and instruction. Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). Retrieved May 12, 2001, from http//www.sreb.org.

Drath, W. (2001). The deep blue sea: rethinking the source of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fink, E. & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, April, 598-606.

Henry, T. (2001, October 9). Military kids are outscoring civilian schools. USA Today, p. 1D.

National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). (2001, October 29). NAESP redefines role of school principal: landmark report identifies elementary school principals as school managers and instructional leaders, bearing greater responsibility for community. Retrieved November 3, 2001, from http://www.naesp.org/comm/prss/10-29-01.htm.

National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). (2000, March). Policy “think tank” on the principalship in America.  Symposium conducted at the meeting of National Association of Secondary School Principals, Washington, D.C.

Principal educators. (2001, October 30). USA Today, p. 14A.

Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn. New York: Doubleday.

Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (March, 2001). Leading school improvement: what research says. A review of the literature. Retrieved September 24, 2001, from http//www.sreb.org. 

Videro, D. (2001, October 17). DOD-run schools cited for closing achieving gaps. Education Week, p. 23-24.

 

 Return to LES Perspectives Home Page