Superintendent Sinecure
I was speaking with a board director this week about the program placement policy and the director candidly acknowledged that the superintendent violated the policy in 2011 and the board (this was the previous board) allowed it because they saw their role as facilitating the superintendent and not as constrainting her. Enforcing policy would have been a constraint. In 2012 they couldn't enforce the policy because sh had already announced her intention to leave and they had no means of managing her. This board director flatly stated what everyone already knows: the board's only meaningful management tool over the superintendent is the threat of termination. They have nothing short of that.
They can't cut the superintendent's pay. They can't deny a bonus. The superintendent is at the top of the career ladder, so they can't deny a promotion. They can't demote the superintendent either. If they take responsibilities away from the superintendent or overrule the superintendent they will be accused of micro-managing. If they speak ill of the superintendent's job performance they will be in trouble for trashing "the district". They can't even damage the superintendent's prospects following their career at Seattle Public Schools.
Each of the last four SPS superintendents, none of whom did well here, went on to jobs elsewhere. Joseph Olchefske fostered a dysfunctional culture and lost track of $32 million and went on to a further career in education (despite having no prior experience in education before SPS). Raj Manhas utterly failed to fulfill any of the executive duties and openly opposed the Board and is now the superintendent in another district (despite having no prior experience in education before SPS). Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson lied so much and so badly that even a do-nothing board was moved to fire her, but she took her one year's salary as severance and got a high profile job in Michigan. Even Susan Enfield, who had no real track record here (or anywhere else), was a hot property when she left the Seattle superintendent job.
This is a real can't-fail opportunity. What would you do with such a position? There are three paths I can think of:
1. Do nothing and wait till they notice. This is what Raj Manhas did. Seriously, it will take them nearly three years to figure out that you're not doing anything. He must have sat in his office playing solitaire on his computer for three years.
2. Do nothing but try to keep them from noticing by creating the illusion of action. Start a bunch of plans, knowing that you don't have to actually implement any of them. Remember that you can really stretch that one out by taking nine months to "gather information", then spend another nine months "developing" the plan. The Plan can even include a year or more of "planning" as the initial action steps. If you work it right you can spend five years just getting a five-year plan ready. By that time it will be obsolete and you can start the planning process all over. Move some pieces around on the chess board - relocate some programs, re-organize the central administration, just superficial changes. Announce a list of "aspirational" goals, knowing that you don't have to actually reach any of them (or even really make a sincere effort to reach any of them). You could even claim to have achieved some; Joseph Olchefske announced that Seattle had completed the transition to a standards-based district. While you don't actually do much of anything, right or wrong, it looks like you're doing a lot. In truth, you're just keeping the wheels rolling, responding to the crises as they arise, and hoping that no one notices that nothing real is getting done. This is what Joseph Olchefske, Dr. Goodloe-Johnson, and Dr. Enfield did. You can keep them fooled for up to five years this way, but the absence of management will eventually show through the facade.
3. Exercise your license to create radical change. I include this in the list mostly because it is, theoretically, possible, not because I think anyone would actually try it. Radical change would include such things as actually creating inclusive classrooms, actually creating schools that work for students, actually providing equitable access to quality programs and services, actually bringing real management to the district, actually empowering teachers, principals, counselors, IAs, librarians, nurses, and the rest of the staff to do their jobs and actually requiring them to do them. This option is on the list, but let's remember that choosing this one would be a lot of work and it wouldn't bring any advantage to the person who tries it.
They can't cut the superintendent's pay. They can't deny a bonus. The superintendent is at the top of the career ladder, so they can't deny a promotion. They can't demote the superintendent either. If they take responsibilities away from the superintendent or overrule the superintendent they will be accused of micro-managing. If they speak ill of the superintendent's job performance they will be in trouble for trashing "the district". They can't even damage the superintendent's prospects following their career at Seattle Public Schools.
Each of the last four SPS superintendents, none of whom did well here, went on to jobs elsewhere. Joseph Olchefske fostered a dysfunctional culture and lost track of $32 million and went on to a further career in education (despite having no prior experience in education before SPS). Raj Manhas utterly failed to fulfill any of the executive duties and openly opposed the Board and is now the superintendent in another district (despite having no prior experience in education before SPS). Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson lied so much and so badly that even a do-nothing board was moved to fire her, but she took her one year's salary as severance and got a high profile job in Michigan. Even Susan Enfield, who had no real track record here (or anywhere else), was a hot property when she left the Seattle superintendent job.
This is a real can't-fail opportunity. What would you do with such a position? There are three paths I can think of:
1. Do nothing and wait till they notice. This is what Raj Manhas did. Seriously, it will take them nearly three years to figure out that you're not doing anything. He must have sat in his office playing solitaire on his computer for three years.
2. Do nothing but try to keep them from noticing by creating the illusion of action. Start a bunch of plans, knowing that you don't have to actually implement any of them. Remember that you can really stretch that one out by taking nine months to "gather information", then spend another nine months "developing" the plan. The Plan can even include a year or more of "planning" as the initial action steps. If you work it right you can spend five years just getting a five-year plan ready. By that time it will be obsolete and you can start the planning process all over. Move some pieces around on the chess board - relocate some programs, re-organize the central administration, just superficial changes. Announce a list of "aspirational" goals, knowing that you don't have to actually reach any of them (or even really make a sincere effort to reach any of them). You could even claim to have achieved some; Joseph Olchefske announced that Seattle had completed the transition to a standards-based district. While you don't actually do much of anything, right or wrong, it looks like you're doing a lot. In truth, you're just keeping the wheels rolling, responding to the crises as they arise, and hoping that no one notices that nothing real is getting done. This is what Joseph Olchefske, Dr. Goodloe-Johnson, and Dr. Enfield did. You can keep them fooled for up to five years this way, but the absence of management will eventually show through the facade.
3. Exercise your license to create radical change. I include this in the list mostly because it is, theoretically, possible, not because I think anyone would actually try it. Radical change would include such things as actually creating inclusive classrooms, actually creating schools that work for students, actually providing equitable access to quality programs and services, actually bringing real management to the district, actually empowering teachers, principals, counselors, IAs, librarians, nurses, and the rest of the staff to do their jobs and actually requiring them to do them. This option is on the list, but let's remember that choosing this one would be a lot of work and it wouldn't bring any advantage to the person who tries it.
Comments
Have any comparable large, urban school districts had better experiences with their superintendents?
For the record, actually, after Seattle fired her, Goodloe-Johnson first tried and failed to get the superintendent position in Newark, and then in Florida (Broward County, if memory serves). In both cases, local parent activists got wind of her Seattle record and reputation and that was enough to put the kibbosh on her chances in both places.
Michigan is another case. Detroit seems to be Ground Zero for corporate ed reform exploitation at the moment. (Apparently it's TFA, Inc. central at the moment too.) A Broad Foundation guy is in a key education position in Michigan (John Covington, I believe), and he's the likely reason that Goodloe-Johnson got hired there -- Broadies hiring fellow Broadies regardless of their track record or skill. Likewise, Goodloe-Johnson in turn hired controversial Lowell Principal G. King to join her in Detroit. Cronyism at its finest.
I feel for Detroit -- it deserves better. But it certainly can't be considered an easy or plum position for any ambitious ed administrator.
As for Enfield, she was never really "hot property." I'm surprised you are buying into that, Charlie. Crosscut and the Times overstated her popularity here. There was no evidence to back it up. I was surprised by their unfounded puffery at the time but then realized she was able to use this hype to entice Bellevue to be interested in her as well as Highline. (She was rejected by another school district, btw.) I have heard that she essentially led Bellevue on with an apparently feigned interested in their district, probably to simply create a sense of urgency and leverage to secure the position in Highline. Bellevue even tried to speed up its interview process for her. I have heard their school board was not that thrilled when that proved to be a wasted effort.
I know such games are not unheard of in the world of corporate hiring and dealing, but it does reflect on a person's character. And the fact remains, Enfield's tenure in Seattle was unremarkable and short. She essentially clocked out when she announced she was quitting in December. That was 9 months on the job. Also, her tenure was bookmarked by principal scandals at both ends -- she fired a beloved principal who did not deserve to be fired (at Ingraham) and allowed two controversial principals who were found guilty of "serious misconduct" to keep their jobs (Lowell). That is her legacy as much as anything.
Good luck, Highline. Good luck, Detroit.
your points are good, but -
if you look at the number of people making over $75,000 a year in money income, or over $100k in money income (statistical abstract of the united states, 2012, tables 702 or 705) - the question I have about those making over 50 or 75 or 100k is --
how long will it take you to replace your job / salary, or better, if you lose your job unexpectedly?
I'll bet that for 80% or 90% of the working stiffs above those income levels, I think there is an easy answer - never. You got a 1 way ticket OFF the up ladder of economic opportunity, and you better grab the highest rung you can grab when you hit bottom cuz that might be it. period.
MJG & Susan E & the rest hit that magic upper atmosphere -- there is no confession, there is no penance, there is no act of contrition --
and there are PLENTY of
FatPaychecksWhichKeepComing.
By the way, suep makes a good point that Goodloe-Johnson did stay a little too long and did end up having problems getting a new job due to her track record. Generally, the trick for executives is to make a bunch of changes you can label as bold moves (centralizing a decentralized organization or visa-versa is a common one), then leave before you can be judged on the results of those changes.
All of this, by the way, is why I would vastly prefer a superintendent who appears to be primarily interested in the job to help children rather than themselves and their own careers. Professional superintendents who hop around the US from job to job do not meet that criteria.
We want a superintendent who is motivated to do cognitive work in the same way that everyone else is motivated to do cognitive work: with autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
But if we had a system that was designed to motivate a superintendent in this way, then wouldn't - and shouldn't - we also have a system that is designed to motivate teachers in this way? Shouldn't teachers also be given the opportunity to work with autonomy, to improve their skills, and to work in service to a greater purpose?
And wouldn't we - and shouldn't we - have a system that is designed to motivate students in this way? Because the more I hang around this question, the more I believe that the primary determinant of student achievement is the student's motivation. So shouldn't students also be given greater autonomy, more opportunity to develop mastery (as opposed to familiarity), and more of a sense that they are part of a larger effort?
And, whether it was hype or not, Dr. Enfield enjoyed a period when she was highly sought-after. Not here in Seattle (except by toadies and sycophants), but in Bellevue and Highline. Again, her total lack of any track record was not an impediment.
I agree that she checked out in December as soon as she announced that she wasn't interested in the Seattle job.
We may not be in perfect accord on the details, but the fundamental idea is sound: the Board's only means of disciplining the superintendent is termination, and they are more burdened by the firing than the superintendent would be. When a board fires a superintendent it makes the board look worse than the superintendent.
The answer is yes both teachers and students should be given that freedom and that autonomy. But the fact is that the best teachers and students take it whether they are "given" it or not and they find ways to work around the idiocies of the system.
The problem is with the students who don't have that intrinsic motivation. There are some who just don't want to be in school and can hardly wait to get out because they see no connection between what is going on in school and what is going on in their lives outside of school.
Then there is another group I call the "gamers", who could care less about learning, but want that high grade, and will do as little as possible to get it, including cheating.
Kids in these two groups have extremely low intrinsic motivation, and overcoming that is an enormous challenge. Just demanding it doesn't work, and the kids in the second group won't be noticed, because they appear to be succeeding.
Then there are two groups that are highly motivated. The first I think of as the "creatives". They are intrinsically motivated but could care less about grades and measuring their success by standards imposed by the system. They have their own agenda and pursue it relentlessly whether they get lousy grades or low standardized scores. A perceptive teacher recognizes a kid like that and works with her. But the goal of that work should not be necessarily to get her standardized scores in math up when math will have very little to do with what she does with her life.
The last "type" is the kid who we think of as the model student, the "achiever". They are sincerely motivated to learn, they get great grades, they fit in socially, they become the ASB president and the captain of the football team, editor of the yearbook, etc. etc. They are great kids, but it's silly to expect every kid to be like them or to build a system with the expectation that every kid will perform as they do.
But the system is set up so that only the gamers and the achievers will perform in ways that measure up to the system's expectations. What percentage of kids do you think fit into either of those "types"?
That is the truest comment I think I've ever read about education. Especially regarding teachers.
Not sure I agree with the four categories of students. I think most kids will succeed if you start young enough and engage them. That is the teacher's most difficult job: engaging students. But it can be done and honestly, it isn't always that hard. I'm thinking elementary here. If you've lost them K-5, it may not be possible to re-engage them at middle school and even less likely at high school.
n...
If the Superintendent does not want to follow policy, he/she will find it hard to get the money they want for WHAT they want.
The Board can say (but never does),"We can't tolerate violation of our polices." "We can't pass a budget if we are not sure our policies were followed to get to said budget."
And then, the Board needs to say nothing else. No whining about anything, just "we can't pass this."
A superintendent would get the message.
Je ne regrette rien
from Yves Smith of NakedCapitalism, who was a guest of Bill Moyers a week or so ago - she was with Taibbi of Rolling Stone talking about financial garbage.
CrooksRThem
Anonymous said...
I don't care how strongly motivated someone is -- a system without strong checks and balances and accountability built in will beat the best people down. I've seen the same intrinsically motivated leaders in one company soar and then when placed in a job in a company that does not value courage and hard "cognitive work", even the best are tempted to coast or not do their best. It's also a catch 22: high accountable orgs and systems attract people who actually want to make radical change. Orgs that have squishiness and opportunities to game the system attract LOSERS.
Thanks for nailing our core problem here -- accountability at the top. This is one case when I believe the phrase "trickle down" actually does ring true.
My thought (on reading your comment) is -- "accountability" is usually so badly mangled. People decide to base it on what they can most easily quantify or measure -- leaving out a whole host of critical behaviors/skills/activities that are critical, but hard (or expensive) to quantify. That brings out the gamers and tends to "depress" time spent on what is not quantified. In the end, not only do you "lose" accountability on other critical (but unmeasured) stuff -- you also annoy and dishearten good workers by imposing bad management on them. It is hard for people to do their best work when they know they are working for people too lazy to fix a bad system, or too dishonest to admit that it is flawed and fails to meet the system's needs. Your best people (the ones who understand the critical importance of excelling in areas that are not quantified and rewareded) will either manage to the metrics (but hate the fact that they know the system has pulled them off their best performance) OR manage they way they know they should, and then either ignore the fact that "gamers" (whom they outperform) are being compensated and promoted above them, or they will eventually become unable to put up with that, and will either change to the first strategy -- or leave. Neither is a good outcome.
Jan
"The satirist D. Dolson Dolson has argued in his book Rule Zero [3] that the Peter Principle is in fact not really applicable, because it implicitly assumes that higher levels of competence are required at higher levels of an organization. Dolson maintains, in his "Dolson Principle," that "the higher the management level, the easier the job." Those in the middle and lower levels of organizations really need to know what they are doing, and are highly accountable, while those at higher levels can reach those levels politically and/or by luck, and need very little actual ability or knowledge to perform their jobs. Dolson argues that people can be demoted, not promoted, to their level of incompetence."
So, apparently, it's actually the Dolson Principle that has been at work with the past Seattle Superintendents.
Oompah
Gov. Gregoire appoints Susan Enfield to state education funding task force
Yes, obviously she is expert on school finance and ed reform...I mean, student achievement.
How many will this Governor commission?
Accountability is inversely proportional to the square of the difference of the pay rate from minimum wage. At minimum wage pretty much 100% accountable ... Seattle School Superintendent close to 0% accountable.