Dropping Educator Prep For Superintendents Is A Bad Idea

There are answers that resolve the difficult issues of a problem and there are answers that avoid the issues.  School districts in Wisconsin face problems that a recent legislative proposal avoids.  School superintendents are resigning and retiring at a faster rate than new superintendent candidates are being prepared for the job market.  A proposed legislative fix is to eliminate the requirement that superintendents must be trained as educators and licensed by the DPI.  Making the job available to a wider pool of non-educator candidates does not address the problems that cause a shortage of trained superintendents.  This is a bad answer – superintendents are educators first and foremost.  Address the issues that cause superintendents to resign or retire early; do not lessen the training that connects a superintendent with the instruction of children.  Superintendents need to be educators.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel accurately reported the problem and the legislative proposal.  “Over the past few years, the number district administrators leaving the job has nearly doubled. At the start of the 2022-23 school year, 107 of 421 Wisconsin public school districts had a different superintendent from the previous school year, with 65 of them in their first year, according to Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators executive director Jon Bales. This is in comparison to 66 changes in superintendents at the start of the 2021-22 school year.

Under current law, all school district administrators in Wisconsin, with the exception of Milwaukee Public Schools, are required to hold a license issued by the Department of Public Instruction. The proposed legislation by Stroebel and Wittke would create a similar exemption for the other 420 public school districts in the state.

‘(The bill) is just an attempt to help provide school districts the option of taking qualified people from candidate pools that they have available to them,’ said Wittke, a member of the Racine Unified School District Board from 2016-19.

‘We just look at it as trying to do things that bring more talent into the K-12 education system and allow talented people to realize the full extent of the expertise that they have,’ Wittke said. ‘(We want to) open up the talent pool and help districts out so they can choose the right person to run the district rather than someone who has a specific license.’”

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2023/05/17/schools-superintendent-turnover-not-unusual-for-wisconsin/70196216007/

The “heat in the kitchen”.

President Harry Truman gave us his direction for dealing with heated problems.  “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”  In a manner of speaking, that is what an increasing number of school superintendents are doing.  After successfully preparing themselves for school district leadership, they abandon their job and/or career.  While President Truman proclaimed himself to be heat resilient, he did not help us understand the issue of heat.  Neither does the Stroebel/Wittke proposal.

The heat is not what it used to be.

Historic heat and current heat are not the same.  In past decades the annual budget or a school referendum or the losing record of the high school football coach were hot school board items.  Parents and residents physically attended a school board meeting, rose to speak to the board, heard each other, and awaited a board decision.  Addressing the board was part of a process and the protocols for speaking with the board were honored.   Heated arguments were made, and some excessive words were used but at the end of the process civility was honored.

In the era of new heat, we add vitriol.  As crass indicators, the new heat can be measured by the decibels of yelling and the amount of spittle that is expelled.  Old heat retained civility and new heat has little regard for self-regulation.  Growing numbers of parents and residents attend physically or Zoom into board meetings and ignore the agenda and parliamentary process.   In many instances, they grab the floor and do not relinquish it until the board gives them the decision they demand, or the meeting is abandoned in chaos.  They leave the lectern to get into the faces of board members.  They over shout those who disagree with their demands.  The new heat is all about forcing board decisions to favor the demands made by the most vocal. 

Superintendents are the school board’s lightening rod.  The district administrator is the board’s executive officer and responsible for implementing the board’s policies.  As the board’s executive, the superintendent also makes recommendations for board consideration.  The superintendent is the point person on all issues thus is the lightening rod that attracts all the storm and fury when there is public disagreement with policy implementation or recommendations of new policies.

Within this tense environment, a recent study found that nearly 40 percent of superintendents reported being threatened or feeling threatened on the job.  And 63 percent of superintendents reported feeling endangered about their mental health and well-being over the past two years.

But while superintendents are feeling the heat, policymakers are unable to accurately determine the impact of pressure on superintendents’ well-being, performance and willingness to stay on the job.’”

https://www.governing.com/education/why-are-so-many-school-superintendents-leaving-their-job

I served as a school superintendent for 15 years and was a school board president during the pandemic and write from experience. 

New hot issues are about parenting and politics not schooling.

“Contributing to this tension are politically divisive issues that many school superintendents have had to navigate over the last three years, including the teaching of race, book bans and providing access to athletics and bathrooms for students who identify as transgender.” 

https://www.governing.com/education/why-are-so-many-school-superintendents-leaving-their-job

The school board is legally authorized to govern local public education and nothing else.  Too many parents and community residents today want the school board to resolve newly heated social and political topics that are not school issues.  Unable to invoke policy at the national or state or municipal level, they turn to the grass roots government of school boards.  Their purpose is to make local policies impose their perspective on everyone in the school district.

No quick fixes; just education.

Public education is public.  Our state Constitution tells us what this means.  Boards are publicly elected.  Schools operate on public tax dollars.  School enrollment is open to all in the public community.  School policies and rules are public documents.  All the business of the board except what the statutes allow to be confidential is a public record.  The doors of a public school may be newly secured, but they are open to the public.  Board meetings are open to public participation.  These attributes are strengths of public education and are part of the solution to emerging struggles.

New stressors that are raised by some in the public must be resolved with the tools of public education – teaching and learning.  This is why school superintendents must be trained and licensed educators.  While elected board members speak for their constituents and their children, superintendents speak for education and the education of all children.  At the board table in front of the public, the superintendent is a singular voice, and that voice must be informed by training and experience.

The superintendent uses teaching skills to prepare the board for the topics on its agenda.  While open meeting laws prevent board members from discussing agenda items prior to meetings, they rely on the superintendent to teach them the background of the topic, the compelling reasons for the topic appearing on this agenda, and the pros and cons of the topic necessary for the board to make an informed decision.  Few board members are trained educators.  They need to be taught by the superintendent to think as educators.

Board members can represent all the traits and characteristics of children in a classroom.  They are not often satisfied with the dictates of a CEO but want to know the why and what if of the topics they consider.  Board members are adult education personified.

Trained superintendents also understand from their school life experiences that successful learning takes time and patience.  Experience taught them that a difficult day for one lesson need not carry into the next day.  Training tells them how to modify their instructional approach to ensure successful board learning.

Trained and experienced superintendents also know that once they have completed their pre-agenda education and presentation, the responsibility for the outcome is up to the board.  It is out of the superintendent’s control.  They know how to release their responsibility to the board.

Beyond teaching board members, superintendents also teach their administrative team, district employees, the community, and children.

Administrative team.  The superintendent leads the central office staff, principals, directors, and department heads.  On a line and staff chart, the superintendent is the person responsible for implementing all district programs.  The faculty and school staff take their organizational direction from the admin team.  A strong superintendent instructs all school leaders in the district vision, mission, and annual goals.  His detailed explanation defines the exact performances required of team members for the district to meet its goals.  Like strong teachers, he models and practices what he teaches and holds himself to the same assessments as his team.

District employees.  An employee who knows the CEO of the organization knows the job he does, has observed the work he does, and understands how the job contributes to the organization feels connected to the organization.  Superintendents who were principals and who were teachers have this background knowledge.  They can speak directly with bus drivers, cleaners, cooks and servers, aides, and all faculty with understanding of the jobs they do.  Conversely, superintendents without school training must rely on the reports of others to indirectly understand an employee’s work.  Except for the largest urban school districts, superintendents who are educators have this essential in-school knowledge and it provides indispensable connections.

Community.  The school community is a set of concentric circles.  Faculty, staff, and children are in the core circle.  Parents of school children are the second circle.  The resident community is the third circle.  Superintendents connect with some of the resident community in the comings and goings of personal living.  Folks at the grocery and gas station see the superintendent frequently; most in the community do not.  Residents know about the schools only from what they hear and read.  For this reason alone, a superintendent must be a community educator who provides frequent, informative, and candid communications to all residents.  Human interest stories matter, especially when they demonstrate that the superintendent knows the people-side of school.  A superintendent forms public opinion about the schools by what he communicates.

Children.  When I was an elementary student I knew my principal, Mrs. Phillips, and my school superintendent, Dr. Salsbury.  I saw Mrs. Phillips almost every day, and I saw Dr. Salsbury’s name in letters to school parents.  Both were real people to me, not just names.  When they spoke, I listened. 

When I was a superintendent with an office in the school’s main hallway, I saw the children of our school every day, and they saw me.  I sat in their classrooms, ate in their cafeteria, and walked their halls.  I considered the school my classroom and just like a teacher I was purposeful in what I said to children.  It was my opportunity to learn from them to better shape their school experience.  Every superintendent needs to get a “kid fix” frequently to remain personally connected with the most important people in the school.

The Big Duh!

If our legislator’s intent is to fill jobs, then any person can be a superintendent.  If their intent is to ensure successful school leadership, then only trained school leaders are qualified to be a superintendent.  As with many things in life, we will get what our legislators settle for.  We hope they settle only for what is best for educating children.

Educating Children: “The hard is what makes it great”

Jimmy Duggan is talking to Dottie Hinson in “A League of Their Own” about her decision to leave baseball.  She tells Jimmy that playing “… baseball just got too hard”.  His answer is about baseball and a whole lot more.  “It’s supposed to be hard.  If it wasn’t hard, everyone would do it.  The hard is what makes it great.”  We apply this insight to the teaching and learning of children in the 2021-22 school year.

What do we know?

No teacher, school leader, or school board member working today has experienced the type of challenges we all face in opening the 21-22 school year.  We have no prior experience to tell us what to do.  After more than a school year in various stages of campus closures, remote instruction, daily screen time interactions, and still within a national pandemic, there is an expectation that we can create normalcy in September.  To add icing to this dire circumstance, principals and teachers have little to no accurate data regarding student learning in the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years.  Hard is an understatement.

The status of student learning is confusing.  Some children were in-person students last spring.  Some children were remote learners last spring.  Some remote learners dropped in and out of active learning; their reasons were many and varied.  Some children were home schooled.  Some children enrolled in out-of-community schools that provided in-person learning and now return to their local school.  Some children were provided district curriculum in 20-21 and others were provided vendor or on-line curriculum.  A classroom in September will be a menagerie.

Statewide assessments in 20-21 were waived.  School assessments in 20-21 were hit and miss.  Data is not consistent across groups of children.  Data is not complete for an individual child.

School faculty and leadership changed.  The pandemic chased some out of teaching and greener pastures called others to new school employment.

As a generalization, children with learning challenges received attention and accommodations in 20-21 but not the same level of attention and accommodation required to make the annual progress they needed.

Why is this thus?

The 20-21 school year was about organizational survival.  In terms of time on educational issues, we spent more energy and resources in 20-21 arguing about remote versus in-person instruction, masking versus non-masking, inequities in Internet access, and our believing in or not believing in health data and experts than we spent on discussions of clinical teaching and learning.

As evidence, more than 95% of the public communication with our local school board were arguments about remote/in-person, masking and social distancing, and the cancellation or limited scheduling of athletic events.  Less that 5% of communication was about quality teaching and children.  The delivery of school lunches to children at home was a more heated topic that reading and writing. 

As evidence, we locally spent more than one million dollars on pandemic infrastructure, especially HVAC and technology.  The good news is that no children or school staff in our local school suffered serious illness and all teachers and children were provided with up-to-date personal devices.  Strangely, we spent oodles of money on how to distance ourselves from person-to-person contact when education innately prospers with close human and intellectual activity.

As evidence, as we begin the 21-22 school year, we still are in arguing mode.  More school board meeting time and administrative attention is committed to resolving parent issues with masking and the status of the unvaccinated than is devoted to curricular and instructional readiness.  Our local Board received more than 100 communications about masking and only two about our K-2 reading programs.

What to do!

Teaching and school leadership in 21-22 will be “hard”.  Although we are not out of the pandemic grind and distraction, we cannot lose 21-22 to the pandemic disruption.  We are ready for and need a good and productive school year of academics, activities, arts, and athletics.  It will not be easy, but the rewards are available.

Instructional expertise is now at a premium.  There are fewer teachers available to teach due to the pandemic and a prior lack of enrollment in teacher prep programs.  21-22 is a year for instructional expertise to be prized and a full-court press mounted through professional development to build more expertise.  These are clinical instructional and human relations skills.  Principals and teachers will be hard-pressed to lead and to accomplish this in-service training on top of necessary daily work, but expert work is required not a wish.

We need to support classroom teachers in “normalizing” curricular instruction.  Masks or no masks, in 21-22 our teachers need to assess each child’s readiness for this year’s curricular objectives.  And, more importantly, instruct or remediate areas of learning which were missed or less successfully taught last year.  21-22 will be a hard year of work to get children and curricular goals back on track.  Constant encouragement and recognition of achievement will be required.

We need to support classroom teachers with conversations about daily assignments not classroom conditions.  The conditions will change during the school year.  Arguments about masks in August may not be relevant in October or November.  Focus on the year not on the day; on the pathway to significant student learning not on the distractions of the moment.  It is hard to move beyond the immediacy of conditions we do not like, but this movement is required if 21-22 is to be more than 20-21.

Understand that some instruction may seem like “yesterday’s” or “last year’s”.  It is.  Back-building learning is necessary bring each child individually up to speed with 21-22 learning goals.  Developing student proficiencies over such a wide spread of curricular goals will be hard; it is necessary to prepare children for 22-23.

The Big Duh!

Although Jimmy Duggan was not always an empathetic coach of the Rockford Peaches, he knew the game and that playing championship-level baseball was hard – “… the hard is what makes it great”.  The scramble to cause children to learn in 21-22 will be monumental for everyone in school.  Each staff member, including maintenance, food service, transportation, and not just instructional faculty, plays a role in transitioning school back to in-person teaching and learning, in-person school athletics, activities, and arts, and being a whole school once again.  Some pandemic protocols will remain in place and evolve during the school year as community viral conditions change.  The fall of the year will not be like the spring.  A graphing of what we need to do in 21-22 is a steep uphill slope; a hard climb.  At the top of the graphing, we will look toward 22-23 and a school more like what we knew and want again. 

We have hard work to do.

Remote Education in the Lifeboats

Some time there is no joy in a good decision.  As a school board member voting with an “aye” to the motion “… we will continue with remote education for all children while our school house remains closed for the duration of the 2019-20 school year”, I acknowledged a good decision while sensing no joy in its passing.  It feels like the captain yelling, “Abandon ship!”.  The 2019-20 school year, as we traditionally conceive of April, May and June at school, has sunk.  The good news is that all aboard will continue with their schooling in various remote lifeboats until we make it to shore safely and life will go on.

For the Class of 2020, “Bon Voyage”. 

For all, be safe as you continue to teach and learn and await a future day at school.

When Everything Is An Equal Priority, Nothing Is A Priority

We are the authors of our own slide into mediocrity. We want all our children in all their school programs to be successful – perhaps, equally successful. To make this happen, we give every program all the funding, staffing, supplies and equipment, time and commitment requested to assure that the school board and administration are 100% supportive of everything our students do. Our unwritten mantra is “We will not hold back a dollar if that dollar is the difference between a student having or not having the educational experience he or she wants.” We are providers of educational experience. To paraphrase an older Ford Motors motto, “We will Provide” became our Job #1. We suborned Ford’s statement “Quality is job #1” and, as a result, lost our quality and like any statistic knows it will, we drifted toward the averageness of public education.

Marshall Field, founder of the Chicago department of the same name, created a store-customer ethos based upon this statement. “Give the Lady what she wants.” A happy customer is a return customer. Our school board and administration again paraphrased. “Give students and parents what they want.” Do not argue or cause a school board meeting riot, again.

Our unswerving commitment to providing blinded us to our looking at the qualitative results of the provision. We provided. Voila! Everyone should be happy. The outcomes, however, are not what we expected and we are no longer happy.

Once known around our state as schools of educational excellence, we slipped toward an average benchmarked by an increasing of children whose annual learning achievement is categorized as basic or below basic. Like too many schools in our state, the majority of our children now are not proficient in reading and math. If you prefer reference to grade level – more than half of our children are below grade level in reading and math. We no longer are the top performing schools in our county. Parent conversation about open enrolling to other schools increased, and were those schools not 40 to 65 miles further away for self-transporting parents, more families would have migrated.

Interestingly, all was not totally lost. Our AP-level children continued to take AP courses and AP exams and their success maintained some school reputational luster. But, 90% of the school district’s children are not enrolled in AP classes. And, although the school’s One Act performers have been to the state competition fourteen years in a row with a boatload of honors, most school programs struggle to reach a .500 season.

Our dilemma is this. When everything is of equal importance and requires undebated organizational support, the importance of everything makes nothing important. The graph of priorities is a flat line at the top of the page. When everyone understands that no programs will ever be diminished or eliminated, the discerning edge of organizational scrutiny and evaluation evaporates. And, the overwhelmingness of everything being important flattens teacher, coach, director and advisor efforts to make a difference.

We lost our ethos, that essential, positive spirit within our school that is our unifying focus. “Provision is Job #1” is not a rallying cry.

The loss of school ethos is debilitating. Years ago, the school board’s charge to school leadership was “We provide a private school education in a public school setting.” The hallmark of our private school education was excellence in academics surrounded by extensive arts, activities and athletic opportunities for all all children. That charge was qualitative. A private school education meant that high quality teaching would cause all children to demonstrate high quality learning. Because funding was available, funding would be used judiciously to support high quality teaching, directing, advising, and coaching. And, because we are small schools, we were expected to monitor and adjust annually to ensure we always were pointed toward quality achievements.

The core of our charge was academic success supported by success in the arts, activities and athletics. Our ethos was that quality teaching caused quality learning. Job #1 was academic success.

We need to reclaim our ethos.