Dec. 19, 2013
After that terrific school leader leaves, who will follow?
President
Barack Obama apologized for a promise that we could keep our health plans. What he said three years ago about a Denver
school requires no apology, but we should take note of the contrast between the
hope of change then, and the reality now. It reminds us how critical it is that we
address leadership in our most troubled schools.
It was in his State of the Union address (Jan. 25, 2011) that he first
praised a Colorado turnaround.
Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver. Three years ago, it
was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado–located on turf between two
rival gangs. But last May, 97 percent of the seniors received their
diploma. Most will be the first in their families to go to college.
And after the first year of the school’s transformation, the principal who made
it possible wiped away tears when a student said, ‘Thank you, Ms. Waters, for
showing that we are smart and we can make it.’ (Applause.) That’s
what good schools can do, and we want good schools all across the country.
Later that winter he pointed to Denver again
as an example for what could be:
Now,
the good news is we know what works. We can see it in schools and
communities across the country every day. We see it in a place like Bruce
Randolph School in Denver.
(Miami
Central High School, Miami, Florida – March 4, 2011).
Sadly,
more hope than change. This past April the Colorado Department of Education
listed 20 of the state’s lowest-performing schools eligible for the School
Improvement Grant (SIG) from the Department of Education in Washington, D.C. (See details on criteria for selection.[1])
The middle school at Bruce Randolph was
on the list; last summer it was chosen as one of four low-performing Colorado
schools to receive a substantial three-year grant[2]
to pursue its “Transformation” (one of four models allowed by the SIG funds). The rating for the 6-12 school (see next page)
has fallen to “Accredited on Priority Watch.”
|
from The NonProfit
Leadership Transition and Development Guide, by Tom Adams
“Planning for a
leadership transition is not a one-time event, but an ongoing practice
focused on defining an organization’s strategic vision, identifying the
leadership skills necessary to carry out that vision, and recruiting talented
individuals who have or who can develop those skills.”
|
After
reviewing Bruce Randolph’s SIG application, CDE requested more information
about several “components of the model,” including: “Leadership: Hiring
competencies for the middle school leader and the process through which the new
leader will be identified.”
It is a crucial question—perhaps for as many as 50 of the
state’s lowest-performing schools that will require dramatic intervention as
implementation of the Education Accountability Act (SB 163-2009) moves forward
the next two years. Who becomes the school
leader? Based on what criteria? And—perhaps one more key question—what will be
put in place to see that, after an effective leader moves on, he or she is
replaced by someone who can continue to move the school forward?
Why is succession so
important? Bruce Randolph, a 6-12
school, is one example. Manual High, also
the focus of national attention (The New
Yorker, Jan. 15, 2007), is another. Kristin
Waters left Bruce Randolph in the spring of 2009; Rob Stein left Manual a year
later. Most everyone who noted their accomplishments
admired their courage and exceptional leadership. But what has happened since?
Yes, the graduation rate remained high in 2012 at Bruce Randolph (85%) and was
well above the district average at Manual (76%). (2013 figures not yet available.) But Denver’s
School Performance Framework (SPF) shows that, overall, both schools are headed
in the wrong direction.
Ratings
decline at two DPS high schools over five years - ratings and
percentage of earned points on SPF[3]
|
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
|
Bruce Randolph 6-12
|
Accredited on Watch
49%
|
Accredited on Watch
50%
|
Accredited on Watch
46%
|
Accredited on Priority Watch
38%
|
Accredited on Priority Watch
39.2%
|
|
Manual High
|
Accredited on Watch
50%
|
Accredited on Watch
47%
|
Accredited on Watch
46%
|
Accredited on Watch
41%
|
Accredited On Probation
24.69%
|
|
The Denver Summit Schools network in the Far
Northeast has partnered with the Blueprint Schools Network. Blueprint is clear about the importance of
an effective school leader. It has
developed five principles or tenets.
“The
(first of these) five strategies, which each demonstrate a significant
correlation with increased student achievement when enacted as part of a
comprehensive plan for school turnaround, (is): ‘excellence in leadership and
instruction.’”http://blueprintschools.org/approach.php
But as the changes in several
Far Northeast schools, below, indicate, easier said than done.
|
It is all-too familiar. The
exceptional principal leads a troubled school in a positive direction, the
consensus emerges that the school has turned a corner, but not long after he or
she leaves, new roadblocks appear, progress stalls…. Each school is different,
and yet the pattern that follows… lower scores, lower school ratings, lower
morale … is much the same. Soon there
are new calls for the school to be restructured. Again! … A vicious cycle.
At a panel discussion in November on school
turnarounds, held at the University of Colorado at Denver’s School of Public
Affairs, Van Schoales, CEO at A Plus Denver, addressed the issue. “We know how
to create a bump” in student achievement, he observed; “we don’t know how to
sustain it.” In its 2012 report, Colorado Turnaround Schools- Rays of Hope,
A Plus Denver raised the issue; for its 2013 report, three districts were asked
about their selection of leaders well-suited for turnaround efforts. (See Addendum A.)
Speaking of
difficult schools: consider the principal turnover at several low-performing
Denver and Pueblo schools receiving SIG funds for turnaround work. As federal requirements for schools using
either the Turnaround or Transformation model call for the principal to be
replaced, one change is to be expected.
But the evidence of the past three years shows that the individuals
first hired to lead Colorado’s turnaround schools were often not there year two. How difficult it must be to see a second or
even a third new principal – see DCIS at Ford and Collegiate Prep, below—after major changes have begun.
Denver
Public Schools
|
|
2011-12
|
2012-13
|
2013-14
|
|
Trevista K-8
|
Veronica
Benavidez
(principal
2008-2012)
|
Ladawn
Baity*
|
Ladawn
Baity
|
|
CMS – Schenck
Elementary
|
Kristin Nelson-Steinhoff
|
Alejandra Sotiros
|
Alejandra Sotiros
|
|
DCIS at Ford
|
Maria Elena Thomas
(1 month – hired 2010)
Ligia Gibson – gr k-2
|
Ligia Gibson
|
Ginger Conroy
|
|
Ford Elementary (phase
out)
|
Mariellen Hoffman –
gr 3-5
|
closed
|
|
|
Smith Renaissance
|
Jason Krause (hired 2010)
|
Jason Krause
|
Jason Krause
|
|
West High (phase out)
5 PRINCIPALS IN PREVIOUS 7 YEARS
PRIOR TO PHASE OUT
|
Santiago Grado–for 6 weeks; rest of year -
Dominic Martinez
|
Dominic Martinez
|
Ruth Baldivia
|
New
schools, new principals
|
School opened in
|
2011-12
|
2012-13
|
2013-14
|
|
Collegiate Prep
|
Karen Alexander
|
Karen Alexander (through Dec 2012)
Gwen Henderson Gethers (interim)
|
Darryl Bonds
|
|
Noel Community Arts
|
Stacy Miller
|
Stacy Miller
|
Stacy Miller
|
|
West Generations
Academy
|
Not opened yet
|
Robert Villarreal
|
Domonic Martinez
|
|
West Leadership Academy
|
Not opened yet
|
Teresa Klava
|
Teresa Klava
|
*When the
name is in italics, it means it was
the
first year for this principal at this school.
Pueblo City
Schools
In Pueblo, new
principals came in at all five schools following their designation as schools
receiving School Improvement Grants implementing either the Turnaround or the
Transformation model.
Only one
school, though, has had the same leader since the changes made in
2010—Charlotte Macaluso at Risley Middle.
Michelle Mann stayed three years at Freed Middle, but a new principal
began the current school year, 2013-14. Three
new principals appointed that first year (2010-11) were not there year
two. _____________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
2009-10
|
2010-11
|
2011-12
|
2012-13
|
2013-14
|
|
Central High
|
Fred
Trujillo
|
Matt Lane
|
Ruth Taravella
|
Theresa Seifert
|
Theresa
Seifert
|
|
Freed Middle/Heroes Middle School*
|
Rob
Finkle
|
Michelle Mann
|
Michelle
Mann
|
Michelle
Mann
|
Phil Compton
|
|
Risley Middle
|
Gerald
Flores
|
Charlotte Macaluso
|
Charlotte
Macaluso
|
Charlotte
Macaluso
|
Charlotte
Macaluso
|
|
Roncalli Middle*
|
Brad
Farbo
|
Cheryl Madrill
|
Karen Newton
|
Michael Kovac
|
Lynn McCarty
|
|
Pitts Middle/Pueblo Academy of the
Arts
|
Alan
Berry
|
John McCleary
|
Karen Ortiz
|
Karen
Ortiz
|
Karen
Ortiz
|
*CDE did not award these schools
the third year of SIG funding (2012-13) due to concerns about unsatisfactory progress
in years one and two. Last week, on the
2013 SPF, Freed and Roncalli were again put on a “Turnaround Plan”—the fourth
straight year for Freed, the third in a row for Roncalli.
What have we learned—and from where can we
learn?
No one would underestimate the
challenge of leading a low-performing school in need of major change. But going
forward, districts and school communities should have a clear set of
expectations of the skills and qualities of those hired to lead such hard work. It is critical to search for and select these
school leaders with great care, and then support them in every possible way. Constant turnover in the leadership of a
turnaround school makes an already huge task that much more difficult.
Fortunately, we now have a better
understanding of the qualities and the right conditions for effective
leadership in these troubled schools. I
point here to several reports to help our school districts address the issue of
leadership, succession, and continuity, and close with excerpts from these
studies. We can
learn to do this better. We must, if we are to avoid the troubling pattern: at
first “a bump,” signs of progress—but when the exceptional leader moves on, the
school itself, sadly, moves backwards.
1. In the mid-1990’s I played a small role in bringing together the
Association of Colorado Independent Schools (ACIS) and the Colorado League of
Charter Schools. The two organizations
were serving schools with similar priorities, such as effective board governance
and leadership. As we look for examples of careful succession planning, we
should be open to lessons learned from private schools—which have dealt with
this issue for 200 years. A
common focus for meetings of independent school trustees includes workshops
such as this recent one, “Succession and Transition Planning: When Your Head
Leaves,” offered by the New Jersey Association of Independent
Schools (Nov. 2013).
In that same vein, at last month’s discussion on turnaround
schools at the UC-Denver, Van Schoales noted that one key advantage for charter
schools in terms of succession is that they have their own board, a group of
individuals who carry a degree of “ownership” for the school and its
mission. It means five to seven men and women
profoundly connected to the school and its well-being—not officials at the
district office less invested in this one school and its students—have a duty
to ensure that it moves forward as smoothly as possible when the principal
departs. Here are two reports with
lessons learned from the charter school world.
|
“In
November, we surveyed CMO leaders and board members. Nearly 9 in 10 said they
have a strategic plan for their organization; about 8 in 10 said succession
planning is either important or a high priority; but only 1 in 4 said they
have strategic plans that deal with top leadership succession.”
http://www.publiccharters.org/editor/files/
FlashSuccession/CMO%20Succession%20Planning%20Report.pdf
|
a. You’re Leaving? – Succession and
Sustainability in Charter Schools – by Christine Campbell
Seventy-one percent of
charter school leaders surveyed for this study say they expect to leave their
schools within five years. For the nation’s 5,000 charter schools, this raises
important questions. Who will be ready
to take over? How will the school maintain its instructional program and
culture from leader to leader? How does a school survive founder transitions?
Where will new leaders come from and how can they be ready to lead existing
schools? [All bold mine]
CRPE’s research finds
that many charter schools are unprepared
when it comes to leadership turnover. ... Though hundreds of new charter
schools open every year, some of the earliest schools are now approaching
twenty years old, and issues associated with start-up and implementation should
be giving way to best practices and standards of operation. One of these best practices is long-term
planning for the school, especially leadership succession.
Charter schools, like every other
organization, need to prepare for leadership turnover. Unlike traditional
public schools, however, they may have no ready source of leaders waiting in
the wings. They also have very specific roles to fill. Many charter schools are
still ramping up, trying to get stable facilities and funding, keeping an eye
on test scores and figuring out how best to educate their students, all of which
distracts school leaders from future planning, relegating it to an
afterthought.
Schools succeed or fail based largely on who is leading the
organization. This study found that charter school leadership regularly turns
over, but the leaders themselves are often too mired in everyday demands to put
strategic and leadership planning on the agenda. Charter school governing
boards often take a backseat role on this issue, and authorizers have also
ignored it, playing a hands-off role once schools are given the green light to
operate. (Inside Charter Schools, Nov.
2010; The National Charter School Research Project; Center on Reinventing
Public Education; University of Washington.) http://larrycuban.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/pub_ics_succession_nov10-1.pdf
Succession Planning in Charter Management
Organizations – Sustaining the Future for Charter Schools and
Their Students (Jan. 2012)
Who Will Take
Your Place? by Don Shalvey, Deputy Education Director, Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, and the head of Aspire Public Charter Schools in California for
nine years
… what this work is really about
is planning for the sustained future of organizations that are successfully
educating hundreds of thousands of students across the nation—sustainability
planning…. I wish I had such a report long before I considered leaving Aspire
Public Charter Schools…. We did a pretty good job in the transition to new
leadership, but the planning and my execution of it could have been better. And
what I know from both personal experience and these research findings is that too
few charter management organizations have given anywhere enough thought to
sustaining their work when—not if—their founders leave.
I also
understand why. When you are running a CMO or leading its board, there are
plenty of immediate and urgent issues to deal with. It is easy to put
succession planning in the pile of important things to do later. And it is
also simply a difficult subject to talk about inside an organization
accompanied by a feeling that it almost can create bad luck by starting the
conversation. http://www.publiccharters.org/editor/files/FlashSuccession/CMO%20Succession%20Planning%20Report.pdf
2. from Successful
principals speak out, Mass Insight Education, Turnaround Brief, March 2012
Building
and sustaining capacity for the long term - Who’ll carry on after I’m gone?
Principals recognize
that sustaining achievement gains is critical to realizing turnaround at scale.
While a successful turnaround can lead to dramatic improvement in the first
three years, these gains often prove fleeting if planning is insufficient and
underlying supports are removed too soon. Even long-range plans are often
disregarded….
The tenures of turnaround principals are
generally short, so it makes sense to plan for succession. Lead Partners can
facilitate deliberate efforts to plan for leadership succession and set the
rules for schools exiting turnaround status to help avoid destabilizing a
fragile school culture. While succession planning can be risky if
prematurely publicized, formal measures such as appointing a successor early on
to shadow the outgoing school leader smooths the process, principals say.
3. “Effective Leadership in School
Turnarounds–What Have We Learned?” Addendum
B. A useful summary of the qualities
of and the best conditions for effective leadership in turnaround schools.
Addendum A
A Plus Denver asks three districts about school leadership at their
turnaround schools
In its 2012 report on Colorado’s Turnaround Schools–Rays of Hope,
A Plus Denver made six recommendations for school districts, including one on School Leadership:
Countless
studies and results from past turnaround efforts point to the importance of the
school principal. Districts should be prepared to put off any turnaround effort
until the right school leader is in place. Districts also need to be prepared
to replace leaders quickly if the school shows no signs of progress. When
possible, districts should prioritize candidates for principal who demonstrate
not only experience in leadership for school turnaround but also familiarity
with the school’s surrounding community and population.
This past fall A Plus Denver asked three districts with the largest
number of turnaround schools for their response to these recommendations. I include part of their response on the
leadership question here.[4]
Denver Public Schools
“During the 2012-13 school year we replaced five of
the leaders at our turnaround schools. We provide intensive, ongoing support
and coaching to every one of our turnaround leaders. However, if we do not see
evidence that the school is moving rapidly to close academic achievement gaps
and improve student learning, we work quickly to make the necessary changes.
“When hiring new leaders for each of our turnaround
schools, we leveraged DPS’s existing principal pipeline program, LEAD in
Denver, to identify high quality candidates. We augmented LEAD in Denver’s
rigorous selection criteria, adding turnaround specific competencies that we
had identified from both practice and in research. These criteria were then
applied to all candidates throughout the selection process, helping us to
choose strong, experienced leaders to serve as the new principals at each
school.”
Pueblo 60
“All principals were replaced at the
beginning of the Tiered Intervention Grant implementation. Guidelines for
hiring turnaround leaders from Mass Insight were used in the national
recruitment effort in hiring all principals. Of the schools that began the
Tiered Intervention Grant program, 2 have been reorganized in some manner which
necessitated new principals being hired.”
Westminster 50
“The importance of having an effective leader cannot be
understated when facing the many challenges currently experienced in a highly
impacted school. The district has ensured and continues to monitor that an
effective leader is at the helm and it has taken the necessary steps when this
was not the case. District
50 has made it a priority to ensure that the right leaders are in place to
provide expertise in our struggling schools.…
Of the seven schools that were identified as ‘Turnaround’ in 2009-10,
five of them now have new principals.
The two other schools have now moved to ‘Improvement’ status.”
Addendum
B - “Turnaround competencies” of principals
The University of Virginia’s
Partnership for Leadership has produced a number of studies on turnaround
schools. One report, “Leading Indicators of School Turnarounds,” written by
Julie Kowal and Joe Ableidinger, included this list of the “turnaround
competencies” of principals who are successful in their turnaround work:
• Driving for results — the
leader’s strong desire to achieve outstanding results and the task-oriented
actions required for success.
• Influencing for results —
motivating others and influencing their thinking and behavior to obtain
results. Turnaround leaders cannot accomplish change alone, but instead
must rely on the work
of others.
• Engaging in problem solving —
including analysis of data to inform decisions; making clear, logical
plans that people can follow; and ensuring a strong connection between
school learning goals and classroom activity.
• Showing confidence to lead —
staying visibly focused, committed, and self-assured despite the barrage of
personal and professional attacks common during turnarounds.
The report also includes the “specific turnaround actions” these
leaders take:
• Focusing on a limited set of
high-priority short term goals
• Signaling the magnitude and
urgency of dramatic change
• Discarding failed rules and
routines and deploying new tactics for early wins
• Releasing or redeploying staff
not fully committed to the turnaround; bringing in new staff who can
help organize and drive change
• Influencing stakeholders to
support turnaround actions
• Quickly trying new tactics and
discarding failed ones, investing in what works
• Driving decisions by openly
reporting staff results and sharing results in open-air sessions
[1] “The eligible schools were identified as either Title I
Schools that are low performing and/or have a low graduation rate OR Title I
Eligible High Schools with low graduation rates.” http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/fedprograms/dl/ti_sitig_tigrfp2013v3.pdf
[2] $1,399,800 to Bruce Randolph; $2,377,157 to Aurora
Central High; $1,097,854 to Lester Arnold High in Adams 14; and $1,607,508 to
Scott Carpenter Middle School in Westminster.
[3] On the state’s School Performance Framework, both
schools were rated on “Improvement” in 2011. Here, too, ratings have fallen. Last
week the state released its 2013 SPF, placing Bruce Randolph in the second
lowest category, “Priority Improvement,” and Manual in the lowest category, “Turnaround.”
[4]
Used with permission of A Plus Denver.
No comments:
Post a Comment