As efforts continue to make schools run more like businesses, the job of principals is becoming more like the job of CEOs. Balancing school budgets and making large purchasing decisions used to be the purview of school boards and school districts, but principals are increasingly expected to make the short- and long-term decisions about the business aspects of the schools they head. In response to this shift, some new preparation programs are focusing heavily on the business and management side of running a school.
In 2008, Rice University, an elite private school with no education department, introduced an MBA program for aspiring school leaders. The program focuses on developing the business skills of principals, while de-emphasizing the role of principal as instructional leader. The directors of the Rice Education Entrepreneurship Program (REEP) are explicit about thinking of principals as CEOs. Being a good principal means being a good manager -- of employees, data, and financials.
According to REEP, it also means bringing new ideas to the field of education. Traditional preparation programs focus on developing instructional leaders who are well-versed in education theory and history, like super-teachers who can help their faculty develop as educational professionals. In contrast, programs like REEP seek to develop leaders who challenge accepted education theory and are willing to try new approaches to get better results.
I respect the efforts of programs like REEP (including the New York City Leadership Academy) to prepare principals for a job that increasingly requires business management skills. I also agree that the public education world needs big thinkers and innovators to face the challenges of educating an increasingly under-resourced student population to participate in an increasingly technology-driven business world. But I think it is a mistake (and such an easy mistake for people coming from a business paradigm) for the directors of these programs to position themselves as competition for traditional principal preparation programs.
The reality is that today's schools need brilliant instructional leaders, capable of connecting with and supporting students and teachers, and excellent business managers, able to collect, analyze, and utilize data to make decisions about staffing and budgets. I wonder if it's possible, or wise, to expect principals to handle a job that big and varied. According to a 2009 NY Times article on the uncertain success of the NYC Leadership academy, Amy Ellen Schwartz, director of the only independent study of the Academy so far, has her doubts. The article quotes Schwartz saying, "It may be that it's an impossible job.... You're asking for things that don't often come in the same person."
Next Monday is Independence Day; tune in for Celebrating independence, Ed Nerd style.
The final quote reminded me of an article Conuly just posted on a company that hires only/mainly people with Aspergers. They do software testing because they are often so precise and detailed that they can complete the work with fewer mistakes than neurotypical people.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if a board of people (not the school board, though. People more involved with that particular SCHOOL like a board of the principal plus staff or teachers) would be able to better handle the complexities of the job. Not that teachers have tons of extra time to be on a board of instructors though. But it's important to have a specific job description and find someone who fits it. If the responsibilities are too diverse, you might find that just one person can't encompass it all.
Anyway, it reminded me of that article (found here: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/putting-the-gifts-of-the-autistic-to-work/ ) because sometimes it takes looking outside the box to fill in the gaps. Is someone who is super analytical going to be able to socially connect with students? Is a strong leader going to be interested in or good at analyzing data? It's possible, but they have to find the right person for the job, or make the job right for the person.
Absolutely! I actually think businesses are much better at creating distinct positions to handle distinct responsibilities, largely because they know and are able to budget for it. Most mid- to large-size corporations have a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to make final decisions and lead the course, a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to handle the company finances, and a Chief Operating Officer (COO) to handle the day-to-day operations of the company.
ReplyDeleteSome public schools now charge the Assistant Principal with most of the staff-and-student-support duties, and employ Business Managers to cover some of the territory. However, some principals are hesitant to transfer decision-making powers to APs, and Business Managers rarely have an education background and, in New York, are barred from making any instructional decisions. That means the principal still has to be intimately involved in managing the budget and much of the operations.
At least one major charter school organization -- Uncommon Schools -- is diving into the business model, employing three leaders per school: a Principal (an educator to oversee it all), a Director of Operations (someone with a business background to handle finances, recruitment, and building operations), and a Dean of Students (an educator responsible for supporting teachers and working with students to improve behavior and academic performance). The model seems to work for them, especially within the context of organizational support to train, mentor, and support leadership in their roles.
Thanks for that article link! I'm super excited to see Bornstein's upcoming (or maybe posted already!) article on American companies that are actively hiring folks with ASDs.