What makes a good principal good?

On day, while walking out of school, after a particularly tough department chairs' meeting, my principal, after whom the idea of going out in a Blaze of Competence is named, asked if I had ever considered a career in administration. I told her that I had not. She asked why not. I had a simple response. I don't like cleaning up other peoples' messes.

Today, I thought the BlazeBlog might investigate what makes a good principal. I was inspired to write this post by a tweet which led me to this New York Times article. I know that you don't want to read that article. Go ahead and read it anyway, because I want you to know how much I stole from it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm going to give you that column's list of the things which make a good principal:

1. A good teacher has been a teacher

2. A good principal feels at home in a cafeteria filled with 800 children eating rubbery scrambled eggs for breakfast.

3. A good principal has her own style.

4. A good principal protects her teachers from the nonsense. 

5. A good principal sets her own high standards.

6. A good principal works with union leaders to carry out her educational agenda, and if she can’t, takes them on. 

7. A good principal knows teachers are only part of what make a school run.

8. A good principal takes money out of her pocket for the school. 

9. A good principal loves and trusts the public schools where she works.

10. A good principal worries in private, ignores the surreal and finds a way to get things done.

11. A good principal has a To Do list several feet long.

12. A good principal leads by example.

 

The column surely uses one principal as the basis for the entire list, and there are certainly risks in that approach. Also, he doesn't actually quantify how he determined that she was successful. However, I've worked in 5 high schools (6 if you count my student teaching. I wouldn't though, since I was hardly thinking about the principal because I was mostly focusing on survival.) and he seems to have figured out most of the keys to what makes a principal good.

But you don't read the BlazeBlog to see me link to the professionals. (aside: if you want me to run a links column once a week, either email me or post in the comments.) So, here, in a totally derivative fashion, is what your humble host thinks makes a principal good. 

1. A good principal sets clear expectations.

The principal is the captain of the ship that is a school. They need to be the person who sets the goals. They need to set clear goals for all members of the school community. When a principal has clear goals for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and longer, people know where they are going. These goals can be developed with members of the community and teaching staff, but the principal has to be the person who enunciates them and pushes people towards those goals. 

2. A good principal recognizes effort from all people, not just faculty.

 The principal needs to recognize that while the teachers have the most direct interaction with students are the faculty, students are learning from all of the employees of the school. Students learn about life from janitors, lunch ladies and secretaries. Indeed, I think most people who have worked in schools can agree that the support staff keeps a school running. They make sure the toilets flush, the trash gets taken out, and the hungry mouths are fed. They are the first and last faces most visitors to a building see. Principals have a duty to recognize all of those people as equal partners in the education process. When those people feel appreciated, they will keep working hard, and the school will continue to operate as a team. 

3. A good principal is an umbrella.

Schools are constantly under assault from people who can't teach. Legislators, board members, and community lunatics are constantly flinging rocks on the internet, on the phone, in person. (Ok, they don't actually fling rocks in person. In person they yell.) There is a constant stream of people who think you could/should/must do 95,000 other things. A good principal deflects as much of that as they can. They absorb the abuse so that teachers can focus on teaching, instead of worrying about new legislation or board policies, or, or, or. I'm not trying to say that teachers shouldn't have to deal with problems they have created, because they should have to clean up messes that they made. However, many of the messes teachers end up dealing with aren't self-inflicted. You know what? I misspoke up there in the subheading. A good principal isn't an umbrella. A good principal is a Kevlar vest.

4. A good principal keeps their worries to themselves.

A principal has the hardest job in a school. They are a member of the team, but they often have to be an individual. I think this is hardest when the times get toughest. When the worries of the world, of test scores, of insane parents and stressed out kids piles up on a principal, the temptation is to spill all of those worries out to the staff. I think that all that does is to make the rest of the staff worry about things that they can't change. Perhaps principals need to find some sort of support system to allow them to get their worries out without making their staff's heads hurt. 

 

5. A good principal is predictable.

One of the things that educators are constantly told is that students need to have a predictable environment for behavior. Schools are no different. They need to be able to predict how a principal will react. They need to know if the principal is going to be enthusiastic about new ideas, how the "boss" will respond to behavior problems. They need to know if they can expect the principal to rant and rave when he shows up to a swimming pool full of jello and goldfish, or if he's going to laugh and put the fish in a tank in the office. It is when people don't know what to expect that students and staff start to take chances, (Going Rouge in mavericky Republican parlance) and that's when schools make the front page for bad reasons.

6. A good principal engages the community.

Schools, when they are at their best, are centers of community. They serve as a gathering place, a rallying point, a home for those seeking one. It is imperative that the leader of that gathering place be engaged in the community outside of their building. Further, in the modern era, schools have to focus more on creating career ready graduates. To do that, schools should be utilizing the business leaders in the community, bringing them in, finding out what they need. The principal should spearhead those efforts. When the principal has been out talking to community leaders, it makes it easier to ask for money, or to diffuse potentially disasterous events. When the principal doesn't engage, the school seems like a foreign place, and community leaders judge it more harshly than they would if they knew the people who lived worked there.

7. A good principal believes in and trusts their staff.

Too often, schools are attacked for what they are or are not doing. A good principal defends their staff because they believe in them. One of the worst things a principal can do when they're new in a building is to not believe in their staff. I think the most damage I've ever seen done by a principal (and admin team in general) was when they entered a building and decided that every problem was caused by "the way we used to do things". For the record, I've been through that twice in ten years. Attacking in this way shows that you don't trust your staff, and that you think they were simply along for the ride with the old boss. Trust in your staff is key to getting them to trust you.

8. A good principal builds relationships.

 I firmly believe that education, at it's root, is about relationships. Kids learn more and better from adults who they believe believe in them. Teachers work better for administrators when they think that those administrators will defend them. Support staff works better and harder for bosses who they think care about them as people. If the principal leads this, and builds a culture of acceptance and positive relationships, the whole school can and will follow. The opposite is also true. If the relationships from the big office feel forced or false, people will no longer give of themselves totally.

9. A good principal provides guidance to young and new staff members.

Schools have a high turnover rate. Some day, perhaps the BlazeBlog will address this problem. At heart today, however, is principals and how they can be good. When dealing with new staff, it is important for a principal to provide support and guidance for new staff members and especially for new teachers. Support doesn't necessarily mean being in the classroom a lot (although they can help by providing lots of informal observations). Support can be an honest and frank discussion. Most of all, they must avoid creating a culture of fear.

10. A good principal stays out of the way.

If the principal is completing number 7 on this list, then they know that they should just let their teachers teach. Too often they can't manage to do this. District officials press down on them, and they press down on their faculty. They think that the best way to improve scores, behavior and reputation is to be heavy handed. Far too often, the end up like Michael Scott. (ok, maybe not like Michael Scott, perhaps more like David Brent.) They think that they are changing things, that since they've had 15 meetings with 30 different people things are changing. They aren't. Teachers will ignore a principal who is all hat and no cattle.

So, to summarize, a good principal sets goals, shields staff from idiocy, helps new staff get the lie of the land, and then gets out of the way. Thanks to all of my bosses who did that.

How do you choose who to fire?

Up until this week, the worst the financial crisis had done to me was to make it basically impossible to sell my house. I haven't been hit particularly hard. Until this week, that is.

This week, my school district announced that they were, in a cost-cutting move (brought on by falling revenues from the state), going to eliminate 143 jobs. They further said that they hoped "most of this would come from attrition", which further muddied the waters. Panicked teachers all over the district were trying to figure out if the person next to them who was retiring counted. Did that person who was moving back to Indiana count? Will I still have a job in August? Will I still make enough money to pay for my mortgage?


However, this is hardly the first time that their has been massive confusion from my district, so that wasn't a surprise. In fact, except for when people get their letters in the next twenty-four hours, there's very little surprise in any of this. People want less taxes, houses lose value, teachers lose jobs. It is a nationwide pattern.


But it did raise an interesting question: How do you decide who gets the axe? Do you fire the long-time teacher because they cost too much? Perhaps you go into LIFO mode, and fire the youngest. Maybe, in a fervor of righteousness, you fire the "worst" teachers.


How do you determine who is the worst? Do you depend on test scores? On grades in their classes? On parent complaints?


Perhaps you use their evaluations. Never mind that, most evaluation forms are flawed, and that many experienced teachers only get evaluated formally once or twice a year.


(At this point, you might be wondering how I dare to be so outspoken. Well, the short answer is that I can't be fired, because I already quit.)


In my district, the VIPWM (Very Important People Who Matter) have made the decision to eliminate as many "non-classroom" jobs as possible. While this seems on the surface like a reasonable decision, I think that there are major flaws in it.


Think about the people who are "non-classroom". Janitors, lunch ladies, the secretarial staff. These people don't have teaching licenses, and they never lead a field trip or a lecture. They don't proctor tests and they don't show up as anybody's teacher of record. In fact, many students don't even know their names. But to eliminate them because that will have less of an impact on the classroom is a bit of a fallacy. Let's be honest, teachers can't do a good job in a broken down, filthy school. Teachers would struggle if the secretaries weren't screening calls, because, as we all know, parents can be a bit crazy.


I know that there isn't a good solution to this problem. I know that every way to eliminate jobs is fraught with problems. I know that no matter who gets the axe, they'll think they were wrongly eliminated. I know that if they were going to fire all teachers and no support staff, I would be complaining about that too.

I know that 143 people in my school district are losing their jobs. I know that sucks.

Now, you might say that this is how it works. I know that. I know that people lose jobs. But these people aren't losing their jobs because they're incompetent. They aren't being fired for misconduct. They're being fired for the fiscal mistakes of others. Indeed, the people who are responsible for the financial crisis which has devoured school funding, which has caused these people to lose their jobs.

The really bitter part, for me at least, is that those people, those bankers got saved when they should have been laid off. The government bailed them out, declared them to be "too big too fail". Why can't the federal government do the same thing with schools? Are we not too important to fail?

I suppose what this whole fiasco shows us where the nation's priorities are. So it's good for that.....

On religion in schools

As we move through the season of Lent, the opportunity once again arises for news organizations to find absurd stories about religion in schools. This seems to happen every year. Every year, there is a story that springs up about how Christmas trees have to be called "holiday trees" and schools have forbidden the Easter Bunny from showing up.

This spring, the story comes to us from Seattle, where a teen (who has so far chosen to remain anonymous) called a radio station and claimed that she volunteers at an elementary school (also unnamed). Ok, this doesn't seem like a big deal. She went on to explain that she wanted to give kids Easter eggs full of candy, but was told (eventually) that she had to call them "Spring Spheres" (details here.)

Already, the story points out, the Facepagespace and twitter-sphere are blowing up with the story.(Never mind that Seattle Public Schools can't even figure out if the story is true)  It's shown up twice in my news feed. People are outraged. They, once again, scream about being offended and wonder "what ever happened to freedom of religion"? (well, I don't know that they scream, all I know is that their comments seem angry.)

So, the civics teacher in yours truly is going to provide a basic primer on the First Amendment, particularly the bit about Congress and religion. To whit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Now, whether you like it or not, the Judicial Branch of the government gets to interpret laws. They also hear cases about violations of Constitutional law, the highest law in the land. So, as this applies to religion in schools, they hear cases where students' rights have been violated.

The benchmark for religion in school cases is Engel v. Vitale, which ruled that schools could not broadcast Christian prayer over the loudspeakers, even if students were allowed to "opt out". The court determined that promotion of a religion, even in a vague nature such as the case's "Almighty God" is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Ok, so let's move forward, shall we? Schools recognize and abide by the Vitale ruling. Some principals have become over-zealous in enforcement, but I tend to agree with them that it is better to be safe than sorry. I would rather offend an entire school worth of Christian parents than subject one child of another faith to the implicit endorsement of religion by the school.

If people want to pray on their own time, that is their business, but no tax dollars should be used to endorse prayer, especially at a place where children are required by law to attend. In fact, endorsing religion, (which is what calling them "Easter Eggs" is) in a place children are required to learn sounds an awful lot like the religious schools run by our old friends the Taliban.  

(this is the point where I mention that I am a believing and pretty faithful Christian. I attend church most Sundays, and when I finish this, I'm going to go upstairs for a Lenten devotional)

In most of the stories we read about, Christians get all up in arms that their traditions, which already dominate the culture in many parts of the nation, are being forced out of schools. Why are they so upset? If they really think their children need to be exposed to only their belief systems, they should pay to send those children to private, Christian schools. Imagine the outcry from these same people if schools forced classes to stop daily for Muslim prayer, so that Muslim students could be allowed to pray. I can see the headlines now. Or what might happen if the school were to intone a Jewish call to prayer during lunch? 

Conservative Christians need to begin to understand that this nation is a nation of many beliefs, and that the government cannot, and should not, endorse any of them. They can be as offended as they want to be when schools stop calling Easter Eggs "Easter Eggs" and put up holiday trees, but that's the way the rules are, and they should learn to play by the rules.

As a total aside at the end of this post; I'm also tired of Christians acting like something should stop because they are offended by it. I know a lot of vegans who are offended you eat meat. Muslims are offended that Western women don't cover their faces. I'm offended that stupid people have "How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?" bumper stickers on their cars. All of these people have every right to be offended, but it's patently ridiculous to think that government policies should change because they offend you.

p.s. On Facepage-twitterspace, this discussion often leads down a road to absurd claim town. So let me as a nine-year veteran of public schools debunk most of them:

Absurd Claim 1: Teachers can't even talk about religion, kids have to bring it up

False. I have an entire unit based on world religions. I can talk all I want, but cannot endorse one religion over the others

AC2: Teachers can't even read a Bible in their own room.

False. Teachers are free to read what they want. Most English books even contain Bible passages as literature

AC3: Schools aren't allowed to have any religious symbolism.

False. Schools can have displays of religious items, but must explain them in a educational setting

And now, to end the post, a video about the way my hometown deals with Christmas lights on government property:

Other claims or questions about religion in the public schools? Questions in the comments will be answered!

A blog about a teacher who blogs.

Editor's note:
Today's blog may contain some language which is best characterized as vile. The words aren't mine, but they were written by students towards a teacher / former teacher. I think that it is important to understand what these students said, so I've left them mostly in there.

Recently, a teacher in Bucks County, Pennsylvania named Natalie Munroe has made all kinds of news for writing a blog.

Here're the details

So, she was blogging on all kinds of subjects, but sometimes she talked about work. Since her work was teaching, when she talked about work, she was doing the same basic thing I do. She was talking about students in a totally anonymous way.

Now, she was angry (being a high school teacher, I can sympathize), and 8 months pregnant (which I cannot sympathize with, but I'm guessing might make you grumpy and emotionally unstable). She said some mean things about students in general. She also said some very funny things, I think.

You know what; I don't know why I'm trying to explain what she said, since the Internet keeps EVERYTHING you ever put out there. That's why you shouldn't text pictures of your naughty bits, kids.

Instead, I'll let her work speak for itself.

Here's what she actually said

If you didn't read that cached version of her blog, please go back and do so, because this my post won't make much sense if you haven't read her blog. Or, you could stop reading this blog entirely and go play FarmVille.

Is the design the same as the BlazeBlog? Yes. Is she mean? Not to any one student. Is she funny? Kind of. Is she profane? A little.

More importantly, did she do anything worthy of being fired? No.

Well not for what she wrote. Maybe for how she wrote it.

You see, my complaint isn't about what she said, but that she said them poorly. She misspelled belligerent. She has a list of funny comments, but doesn't put them in a particular order, so the comedy value isn't what it should be. For example, I would have divided the list in two principle ways: academic knuckleheads and social knuckleheads. Then, I would have used the ones that are opposite of each other (about siblings) next to each other. This is basic composition. Admittedly, she has a 3 year old at home, but if that's hurting her composition skills, perhaps she should use a technique I'm sure she asks kids to use: draft, revise, publish. Just because you can post right away doesn't mean you should. 

So, to recap: she shouldn't be fired, not for what she said; but as an English teacher, perhaps, because she's not very good at writing (or at least at revising). Tangentially, I also didn't like her comment about the bell meaning the "end of class, so leave", because I think that you should talk to kids when they need to talk. That being said, as soon as I read it, I immediately thought of one kid who it would apply to in my Civics class, so I get where she's coming from.

Following her suspension, she tried to disappear the offending posts, but did post about the situation. She defends herself as an educator, points out the rush to disseminate only the negative she said, and points out that either parents or students went digging for the blog so they could use it to attack her. Even in this blog, she substitutes a 0 for an O at one point. Since I blog on blogger, I'll point out that there is a spell-checker, and that it's very good. Also, blogger has a button that allows you to preview your blog, as it will appear online. Again; draft, revise, publish.

In an interview with the Bucks County Courier Times she notes that it seems that there is "less accountability on students while (teachers) are forced to explain everything they do". I think she's right, and I applaud her for being a truth-teller. I think she's saying things that almost all educators, especially in middle and high schools, would support (even if they don't like the original things she said).

Anyway, lets get back to this blog of hers, shall we? I think the students who are out to get her (and who are dumb enough to comment on the blog), actually prove her point about entitlement (and poor grammar).

Some of my favorites with commentary:

Jokes on you because this link is being cycled throughout the students of CB East via facebook. Have fun applying for unemployment. Sincerely, "cooperative in class."

Um, wrong "Jokes" big guy. I think you meant "Joke's", as in "Joke is". Well played, genius, well played.

Then this piece of scat. I've edited the nastier bits of misdirected anger:

ConcernedStudent said... Why would you waste your time blogging about how we are belligerent f*cks (you spelled belligerent wrong dumb*ss)? You should be spending your time helping out students instead of insulting them on here. You have cheated, screwed, and under-cut every single one of your students this year. And i speak for everyone when i say you were a douche to all of your students in class and made no effort to help any of us achieve our academic goals. Maybe you should learn to teach and be compassionate with your students. Respect goes a long way, and the only way people will respect you is if you respect them (too late). Have a nice life. Good luck with the inner-city sh*thole they call a school in philly.

Where can I begin? So many things to comment on. You know what this calls for? A numbered list of criticisms!

1. The parenthetical thought is awkward because it is a statement, but it follows a question.
2. You know that "I" is a capital letter when it stands alone, right?
3. The assumption that she will be fired.
4. More capitalization problems; "philly" also needs a capital letter.




I've saved the "best" for last. Sorry about the length, but I think Mr. Shoolbraid's thoughts are just too good to avoid. Actually, you know what, I think I'll break his thoughts up, so we can really pick apart his thinking.

Dear... you, Hey, I remember you. This is Jeff Shoolbraid talking, just so you know I'm not hiding behind a computer screen and just randomly bashing you.

Good start, glad that you're not randomly bashing. Bashing is better when it's not random. I would take issue with your assertion that you're not hiding behind a computer screen, since that is just very nearly the only place from which you can comment on a blog.

I'm not sure if you remember me, but you were by far the worst teacher I've ever had because you were simply a c*nt.

You're a bad teacher not for any given reason,but because of what you are. Classy, and well reasoned.

Turns out my assumption was correct.

What assumption?

Though, if I just sit here and call you names and such it really doesn't prove any points and makes me essentially as unintelligent as you.

And you have proven your own point.

It also doesn't really solve too much, but now that it's out of the way, here are my just as pointless two cents: Students can be a pain, but it's your job to deal with them. So this means it's your job to deal with the assholes, weird kids, drama queens, quiet kids, and so on.

I actually agree with Mr. Shoolbraid for this part.

The students, on the other hand, don't really owe you anything. You see, as a teacher, the world should not revolve around you. You should revolve around the students' lives. Sure, maybe kids treat you like shit, or don't give a shit in general as far as the class goes, but you have to remember the demographic here.

Um, you know how you're on a blog, complaining that this adult is complaining about you? You've kind of just proven her point.

You're teaching high school kids. These are the rebellious/self involved/self discovering times in there lives. They are transitioning from being kids to adults. So sorry if they don't exactly know how to go about being interested in a high school English class. You need to give them a reason to give a f*ck, and this starts with showing respect to them, which involves a little bit of extra work on your part.

Um, yes, respect is important. You need to respect her, and then she should repay that in kind. However, I would put forth the idea that Ms. Munroe did show respect in that she didn't aim her anger at any one student. Unlike you. Also, transitioning to adulthood is not an excuse for not using the right "there/their".

Though, if you're not willing to do that, I don't blame you. I for one don't know what it's like from a teacher's prospective like yours, and I'd believe you if you said it was tough. Maybe teaching isn't cut out for you though. It doesn't give you the right to virtually abuse your class via an internet blog, which is just tacky by the way. It also doesn't give you the right to rob you students of a solid high school education.

What doesn't give you a right to "virtually abuse students"? Is it that teaching is cut out for her? You know what, that doesn't make sense. Also, is there a blog that's not on the internet? You could also use a comma before "by the way". I'm just sayin'.

It's not a students' job to please you, it's your job to get a student an A to the best of your ability in a reasonable fashion. So sure, some students may still not give a shit. If so, give them an F.

Wrong you are. My job has nothing to do with getting students As. It has to do with teaching, and grades have very little to do with learning, except as a motivational tool.

Some students might still be assholes, but I had a pretty good relationship with Silverfox and all the principles at the school (not in a bad way) and I know they're all more than capable with dealing with those kids. And sure, some kids still might be drama queens (and kings, lets keep it pc) but hell, that's life. I also heard that this little stunt is getting your fired, and to all the students and parents that you've pissed off over the years, I'm going to take this opportunity to say good riddance! Sincerely, Jeff Shoolbraid PS. Presidents have something to do with politics, I hope you've learned this by now.

This is mostly inside baseball and drivel. However, I've bolded the bit that I think is the most interesting. You see, Mrs. Munroe had a problem with students and their sense of entitlement. She even took a shot at kids with too big an opinion of their own intelligence (like Mr. Shoolbraid). What did you do in reply? You proved her point.


I hope she taught these geniuses who commented on her blog irony.... But she might be a good teacher, read this comment. She's clearly taught this commenter something, even if they do play fast and loose with the rules of capitalization.

Real Classy Ms. Munroe. I just have to say that I am very disappointed by this. I originally didn't completely loath you like the rest of the junior class, but my feelings have now changed. I don't appreciate how in a previous post you stated that describing teachers and administrators with four letter words was inappropriate, is describing your own students with these same words acceptable? How's that for a rhetorical question? Also, how could you not have even thought to delete this? The worst of the posts are from a year ago, why didn't you delete them? It's understandable to want to talk about your day at work, but the internet, seriously? By the way, what is my "cooperative in class" comment mean? "A complete and utter jerk in all ways. Although academically ok, your child has no other redeeming qualities." well I don't believe an hour and a half a day for half a year can really lead you to a point where you can see a person's full character, you can't make those types of assumptions. "Asked too many questions and took too long to ask them. The bell means it's time to leave!" FYI your job is to teach. and the classiest "Rude, beligerent, argumentative f*ck." you tried to throw in a few "big words" but the final four letter word makes up for it. I am not going to call make up some "comment" to describe your teaching skills, personality, or character because I only spent an hour and a half each day for a semester with you. Just a small part of my day, and an even smaller part of my life. I can't judge you from just that... But your blog(this post alone) gives me a better and full picture. P.S. How was my use of ethos, pathos and logos?

Your ethos, pathos, and logos were pretty good. You could use some help determining satire. For what it's worth, I think 90 minutes a day, plus reading your writing (obviously a lot in an AP Lang class, oh that's right, I know you had her for AP Lang.), she can probably get a really good vibe on who you are.