LeaderTalk

Recommendations for the Obama Cabinet: Secretary of Education and Secretary of the BCS

I have already made plans to attend the presidential inauguration on January 20, 2009. I booked a hotel room at 11:01p on election night. Just as soon as Obama was declared the winner on CNN (note that Fox projected Obama before 11p, but I stuck with the conservative projections of CNN) I was online looking for hotel rooms. Of course everything in DC was booked. However, I found a hotel 30 miles outside of town. Finding ticket for our crew (my wife and three young boys) is next on the list of “to dos”; I am on the waiting list for tickets (whatever that means—I think outgoing Senator Dole’s peeps are just appeasing me).

Last week I watched the president-elect discuss on 60 Minutes his plans to “push his weight around” the issue of the college football post season (This was the second time he had made such a reference. On the eve of the election Obama was interviewed at halftime of the Monday Night Football broadcast and made a similar declaration). For those of you unfamiliar with how the NCAA handles the post-season here is a brief primer. Unlike all other NCAA sports—or for all organized sports for that matter (check that, even unorganized street corner sports)—there is not a playoff system for college football. Rather, there is an antiquated, Good Ole Boy (university presidents, TV network executives, and corporate sponsors) system of Bowl selections. Historically, the selection process was not unlike the varsity football team’s selection of the homecoming queen in the locker room. More recently, the Good Ole Boys modified the system to make it more fair and equitable—enter the BCS, the Bowl Championship Series. Essentially we have the same, lame system, but now have a combination of human AND computer error to justify the selections to Bowl games.

[Aside: I should note that the public rationale the “Boys” use for not installing a playoff system in academics. That is, they do not want to see football players miss any more school then necessary. As I write this there are a number of NCAA basketball teams playing in Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii (BTW, they have a playoff system that is incredibly lucrative). Such tournaments take place at semesters end, a great time for student-athletes to miss classes AND exams. On the other hand, football games are played on weekend nights with the team usually traveling to game site a day or two prior to the game.]

So why do I bring all this drama to the table—because over the next few weeks “No Drama” Obama will be making important cabinet appointments. As a lifelong educator and as a father to three public school children I am deeply invested in Obama’s selection of Secretary of Education. Before I make my pitch for who this person should be, let me try to get good seats to the inauguration by cementing a post in his cabinet—as the Secretary of the BCS.

Let me make my case.

Point #1:     Supposition: The current BCS system is flawed (see primer above).

Point #2:     Vision: I want a playoff system (see Obama’s comments on 60 minutes and MNF—that's Monday Night Football for you football luddites).

Point #3:     Interest: I love football (contact my wife about detailed accounts of my watching football on Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays… see also shoe box full of game stub receipts).

Point #4:     Experience: I played football in high school (see also middle school coaching experience while teaching and pee-wee coaching for son #1).

Point #5:     Expertise: See points #1-4 above.

Say no more. I am qualified and have the desire to take this on. Is this not the typical process for Cabinet selection? Oh, perhaps I forgot political implications (I think I represent two important constituents (1) I am Hispanic and (2) Soy gordo).

The reason I am making a play for this yet to exist Cabinet position is my hope that Obama’s selection of Secretary of Education is NOT based on similar notions I outline above. That is, interests, style, and political points should not be the best metrics to score knowledge, skills, and dispositions on the rubric. If they were perhaps I could shoot for an even more prominent office (perhaps the Republican VP position in four years-- oops that already happened this year).

No, we should be seeking substance in our next educational leader.  Recently, the former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell has been publicized as a leading candidate to become Secretary of Education. But I wonder how he would be rated on the rubric above. And, how does the General stack up against the other notable candidates?

I would like to revisit the rubric using two of the leading contenders for the position: Powell and Obama’s chief educational advisor during his campaign, Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond from Stanford University. I believe that the selection of the next Secretary should begin with the following supposition:

Our educational system is broken. While we have highly qualified and extremely dedicated teachers and leaders, our educational system is not living up to its ambitious and righteous charge of ensuring learning for all children.

Then, using my rubric we should come to understand each candidates:

Vision, Interest, Experience, and Expertise.

To complete this task I would encourage readers to investigate the record of each candidate (here is a link for Powell and here is one for Darling-Hammond). Score each candidate with or without the rubric I provide. I believe you will find that the General and I have similar qualifications for our respective positions. We both have passion and interest, but limited experience and expertise. However, we each may make some political sense. Should we select such Cabinet positions on passion, interest, and politics? What about intellectual merit? What about the advancement of thoughtful and meaningful ideas? What about the accomplishments one has made in her field?

The ideals of our educational system set us apart from other countries because of our quest to allow education to be a ladder of opportunity for all people, regardless of birth right, gender, ethnicity, etc. If we are to find tonics to what ails our educational system we will need the right people in the right places. I believe Dr. Darling-Hammond is this person who will strive to make fundamental changes for both equity and excellence, for both democratic citizenry and market-based markets, and for both social efficiency and social mobility.

What do you think? Who is your candidate for Secretary of Education?

If Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond meets your criteria then sign this on-line petition to encourage President-Elect Obama to select Dr. Darling-Hammond. 

And, if you think I should be elected Secretary of the BCS... well you'll need to contain your passion until I gain more of the necessary experience and expertise.

What is our “moon shot”? An educational reform catechism

School and district leaders are constantly bombarded with mail (both electronic and postal) and cold calls (mostly via telephone) advertising tools and services that claim to improve student achievement. Different products have had varying staying power. For example, portfolio assessments were a fad of educational reform that lasted throughout the 1990s—only to die a slow death because colleges and universities need a simpler metric to determine admissions. Such fads sprout educational cottage industries to fill the philosophical “what does this mean” and procedural “how do we do this” voids in school settings. As a result, schools have become establishments that need to be in a constant state of readiness: ready both for the next salvation and its savior (who will help explain or institute the new). All the while, experienced educators understand that reforms and reformers will come and go and reside themselves to the fact that “this too shall pass.”

What is the educational reform fad of this era? I suggest that the overwhelming press for student achievement gains (in the aggregate) and the reduction of achievement gaps among student sub-groups have become our “moon shot”. This movement has its roots in and has been promulgated by the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), No Child Left Behind (NCLB). With these and other related reforms we, as educators, were told to “re” vision our underlying purpose. However, with the lack of effective executive or legislative leadership, the inspiration behind this movement has been realized not as tangible to but rhetorical. The contradictions inherent in the tactics we have employed to achieve our “re vision” illustrate this point: NCLB is riddled with mandates and sanctions if targets are not made, yet the current achievement goals are not doable; NCLB dictates that all states must enact valid measures of student achievement, yet the strength of Federalism allowed each state to create their own individual assessments of achievement rendering state performance metrics virtually incomparable.

So why write about NCLB as our rhetorical moon shot? Will we not talk about this reform a decade from now as another passage in the annuals of the educational reform graveyard? Perhaps. However, while I believe in the premise of NCLB, I also believe that the execution has been so deeply flawed that we have too easily used the acronym as another four-letter word to create fear and anxiety. To move beyond rhetoric or dogma and actually realize our moon shot, to advance student learning, our tactics must be focused on the questions we have and a subsequent set of answers grounded in what we already know empirically and conceptually. Here I offer a new educational catechism (a set of important questions (Q) and corresponding precepts (P)) to guide our work to meet the reasonable, measureable, and righteous goals of student learning:

Q: What is the purpose of education?

P: The clear and relentless focus of the enterprise of schooling is student learning. (I should note that I define learning as both a cognitive and affective process; That is, the ultimate outcome of school is learning, but not narrowly defined as content achievement). Only then can we talk about the purpose(s) of developing an informed democratic citizenry and ready workforce.

Q: Should we monitor and hold to teachers accountable?

P: Yes. However, if the purpose of education is student learning (see previous precept), we must monitor student learning and not teaching. That is, too often school leaders conduct performance evaluations focused on the actions of the teacher while they should pay specific attention to the learners in the classroom—a very different, intriguing, and enlightening perspective. In this way we can some to understand what and how to hold teachers to account for.

Q: Can all students learn?

P: Yes. However, we must not rely on a “one size fits all” mentality. That is, instructional equity is not about teaching everyone in the same way. Additionally, specific safeguards must be put into place for the varying degrees of developmental and special needs of learners.

Q: Do all teachers want students to achieve?

P: Yes, and those that don’t have such a belief or dispositional quality are actually conspicuous—We know who these people are and should not have the opportunity to teach our children.

Q: Are all teachers able to be effective instructors?

P: Not all teachers have the capacity (ability, knowledge, and motivation) to be effective. Pre-service and in-service programs must focus on the knowledge and skills necessary to be effective teachers—this includes content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. This also including not certifying those who do not possess the skills and beliefs highlighted throughout these precepts.

Q: What is the most influential variable to impact student achievement?

P: The most influential variable to raise student achievement (within the school context) is teachers.

Q: What is the most influential variable to impact teachers?

P:The most influential variable on teachers is their school-level leaders: the principal.

Q: What kinds of leadership are most influential in schools?

P: The most influential leadership models in schools are not characterized by position, but by a set of individuals that bring expertise to bear on specific problems. Such collective and engaged leadership includes elements of challenging the status quo, knowledge of instruction, curriculum, and assessment, and monitoring and evaluating programs and practices.

Q: What is the role of the school organization and the educational institution?

P: The organization can subsume (for good and bad) any and all local reform efforts. Moreover, the institution is a powerful force that leads to all school organizations to resist change and to morph into looking like one another. As such, the bureaucracies of the organization and the forces of the institution must allow for innovation and creativity beyond the limits and limitations of the traditions of schooling and education that confine us today. –More specifically, the school organization and educational institution must comply with an educational catechism along with local educators.

Q: What is the role of the community that surrounds our schools?

P: Schools are the community and communities are the school (here I include parents in the definition of community). Social service agencies and schools must be jointly conceived and governed as borderless structures. Additionally, the uniqueness of the context of place and richness of diverse cultures must be recognized and celebrated.

* * * * * * * *

Many of these questions and the corresponding precepts in this catechism are nothing new. Rather, such a catechism is an inspirational call for we, professional K-12 educators, to develop a vision of what we believe in and how we can get there. To achieve our educational “Moon Shot” we need to first know where we are going. This catechism is an initial step to generate professional discourse. I invite readers with feet on the ground like all of you to add to this catechism. In 2001 the beliefs of local educators were not voiced nor heard. At the precipice of a new reauthorization of ESEA we should engage in the process to set the direction and policies for our Moon Shot!

Download MilitelloCatechismTable.pdf

Evaluating Principal Candidates

The state of Massachusetts is in the midst of developing new standards for school principals. Previously, the state had five generic competencies that educational administration programs “checked off” for certification. Now, the state not only wants new clearly articulated standards aligned with current research and the national Interstate School Leader License Consortium (ISLLC) standards, but they also want to develop an assessment to evaluate the standards. So far so good. A team of us at the University of Massachusetts- Amherst were asked to begin drafting the new standards. Rather than looking as a list of things all principals “should know,” we began a conversation about what school leaders should know, understand, and be able to do at different stages of development. We developed three benchmark times; We called these T-1, T-2, and T-3. T-1 is the candidates’ competency in any given standard at the time of entrance into a certification program. T2 we called the “Apprenticeship.” Here we would evaluate candidates as they completed the certification program. Finally, T-3 would focus on the in-practice professional. That is, what would we expect of any given standard of a principal 3-5 years into his/her work.

Next, we developed three overarching standards: (1) Leadership for Learning, (2) Organizational Management and Operations, and (3) Community Partnerships. In each dispositions, knowledge and skills, and key practices are refined at the specific level of development (T-1, T-2, and T-3). Here is an example of a key practice in the Leadership for Learning domain:

T-1 (Current Professional Teacher): Works in concert with the schools vision for learning that prioritizes high quality learning and teaching as the core work of their work as a teacher.

T-2 (Principal Licensure Candidate): Articulates a personal vision for learning that prioritizes high quality learning and teaching as the core work of the school and plans for the facilitation of its development.

T-3 (In-Practice Principal): Facilitates development of a shared vision that prioritizes high quality learning and teaching as the core work of the school.

Notice the subtle difference between the standards. We wanted to make sure the language of the standards matched what we expected of principal candidates at their various stages of development. Too often standards are stated in a manner than only master in-service principals could meet. This made our next task a bit more manageable- assessing the standards.

We have tentatively called this phase of the work a “360-degree” principal evaluation” for candidates at the T-2 benchmark. The 360-degree principal evaluation will be designed with input from representatives from the Massachusetts Department of Education, program coordinators from principal certification programs across the state, as well as current school principals and superintendents. The 360-degree principal evaluation currently has three components:

1. Certification Program Completion Rubric- designed to assess student portfolios that demonstrate proficiency of the new principal standards at the T-2 benchmark. This is to be completed by the program faculty;

2. Field Internship Rubric- designed to allow on-site principal supervisors to assess candidates performance and readiness at the T-2 benchmark; and,

3. On-Line State Assessment- designed to assess knowledge, skills, and dispositions of principal standards at the T-2 benchmark.

We are currently looking for feedback on the over all design. When we were first approached to do this work, the state clearly had a paper-pencil assessment in mind. We feel strongly that other measures are also important. But, are we still missing critical elements in our evaluation as principal candidates complete a program (T-2 benchmark)? Should the on-line assessment target only knowledge? And, how do we assess dispositions? As you can see we are still developing this and would welcome comments from those of you who have already completed your certification as principals.

After completion of the 360-degree principal evaluation, we will pilot the system in Springfield, MA and Boston, MA. We will then begin work on a 360-degree principal evaluation at the T-3 benchmark. Our hope here is to align what programs are teaching and evaluating with what districts are expecting and evaluating once the candidates are in-practice.

The Race for Space: How high schools compete for urban students

Are school districts increasing racing against each other? Not a race to be the best or most efficient, but simply a struggle to attract and keep as many pupils as possible. In the 1990s, Michigan, like many other states, shifted to funding schools mostly through a per-pupil formula determined by the state. Michigan schools previously were funded largely by local property taxes supplemented by state per-pupil contributions, but tax-reform measures have capped funding from property taxes and made Michigan’s public districts reliant on state per-pupil funds. At the same time Michigan, like many other states, has implemented a “schools of choice” policy that permits school districts to accept pupils who reside in other district zones.

Over the ten-year period after Michigan’s major school-funding reform in 1994, many urban and suburban districts found themselves competing for per-pupil state funding. Suburban districts need extra students in order to make up budgetary shortfalls and protect instructional programs that are essential in today’s political climate of school accountability. Several districts in this study built new or substantially renovated state-of-the-art high schools, possibly illustrating a “space race” between the districts to build bigger, better, newer capital assets that attract pupils and residential development. The central-city district, surrounded by growing suburbs with higher-value taxable property, is at a disadvantage in this competition.

I have been involved in a study of one specific metropolitan area of Michigan. Our analysis of school district data in one urban area suggests that an escalation in the amount of money spent on building new high schools has coincided with the emergence of schools of choice competition in the region. Seven of the nine districts surrounding the urban district have substantially renovated or built new high schools in the ten years. Only two districts (both substantially rural) did not join the fray during this period. Furthermore, of the five districts that share long borders with the urban district, four have put significant investments into capital assets since 1999.

Three years ago I moved to Massachusetts. I found a similar trend. Specifically, suburban districts were competing for student in neighboring urban centers. While we have witnessed this chronic issue at the elementary level with the proliferation of charter schools, this specific issue of suburban schools building new facilities to draw students from urban centers seems disturbing and acute.

In both the Massachusetts and Michigan context money is being spent on public advertisements (radio, newspapers, and even billboards) to attract students. Some schools even provide regionalized transportation from the urban center. In the 1970s such movement was mandated by state legislation to de-segregate schools. Is this new phenomenon a de facto de-segregation policy? And, if so, is it working? Are we tracking the demographic and achievement variables of students leaving the urban centers? Are the new economic forces (e.g. competition) and policies (e.g. educational funding follows the student) dictating that districts do whatever is necessary to attract new students? And, as students leave the urban centers are highly qualified teachers close behind?

In the end, the policy levers and economic forces have possibly inverted suburban districts’ thinking about urban students. The student populations that suburban districts once sought to keep out may now be sought after.

Are formative assessments informing decision-making and practice?

No Child Left Behind and related state reforms have increased recognition of the need for school leaders to use assessment data to drive curriculum and instruction. Initially, assessments were primarily summative in nature, coming at the end of a course or school year. But as school staff began looking at this information, many began seeking formative, rather than summative, assessments to gain more frequent feedback on students’ learning (a distinction described as being a choice between “biopsy” data that is still actionable and “autopsy” data that is collected after the fact). As a result, demand for formative assessments has skyrocketed, and schools are deploying a variety of models, ranging from “home-grown” tests created by teachers themselves to commercially packaged assessment systems costing $12 or more per student.

Formative assessments are a fast-growing and under-studied phenomenon, with major implications for leadership practice. They offer the potential to close the “virtuous circle” of curriculum, instruction, and assessment by providing “just-in-time” feedback for teachers and administrators. They also raise major issues of cost, validity, individual capacity, and organizational coherence.

I am currently in the midst of a study of three school districts. Each has employed a formative assessment system in their middle schools. Each has begun with math and will ramp to English in the near future. Each district is utilizing a different assessment system: Galileo (ATI), NWEA, and one district which has created their own system. We are finding that there are a number of issues that foster or inhibit the use of formative data:

• Being able to understand the difference between formative and summative data;
• Direct match between the assessment items, state curricular frameworks, and what is taught by the teacher;
• Timely, accessible, and friendly data reports;
• Legitimate time for groups of teachers to meet about the data;
• Willingness to engage in discussion about the impact data should have on programs and pedagogy;
• Teachers’ capacity to implement new pedagogical strategies based on the data (e.g. differentiated instruction);
• Organization’s capacity to implement new programmatic strategies based on the data (e.g. course remediation); and,
• Gaining knowledge that student achievement data are more powerful when analyzed with other data sources (e.g. perceptional data).

A recent critique by the Aspen Institute names the use of formative assessment data as a key recommendation for the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) - currently under the auspices of No Child Left Behind. With the tremendous pressure for districts to improve state test scores, important new questions have emerged. In what ways have data influenced decision-making in schools? Are educators participating in shaping data to change their practice or is their practice shaping the data? Are educators using data that are valid, aligned with state curricular benchmarks, and associated with state level summative assessments? And, will the coercive, exogenous pressures, and mandates have a simple axiomatic impact on administrative decision-making and pedagogical practices? These are current questions I am interested in learning more about as a new debate of ESEA is looming. During the last debate, K through post secondary educators were woefully underrepresented in this debate. This time around how data are used to support not just sanction schools will once again be of paramount importance. So too will the ways in which we all engage in the debate.

Technology Embedded Tasks in Educational Leadership Graduate Education

I have recently entered my third year as a teacher. Actually this is my third career as a teacher. My first teaching experience began as a middle school teacher in 1992. In 1997 my teaching career moved into the administrative realm- assistant principal in a high school and subsequently the principal of an 8th/9th grade building. Now I find myself teaching future administrators at the university level. Let me tell you- teaching is teaching is teaching. My graduate students often remind me of the 7th graders I taught! I guess that is not a bad thing- I really enjoyed teaching middle school kids- call me crazy.

In every iteration of my career I have been addicted to the latest technologies as a tool of sense making and of efficiency. As a middle school teacher I was the first faculty member in the school to use the Internet and to engage students in the development of presentations using PowerPoint and HyperCard. As an administrator I tried to “electronify” all the administrative parts of my work. I developed a school Intranet for faculty and staff and used the Internet to better communicate with the community. I am currently teaching a course at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst titled, “Theory and Research in Educational Administration.” I have been searching for ways to integrate technology into the course. This year I have infused Digital Storytelling, Audio Casts, and Podcasts.

Student in my course engage in five tasks. The first is the creation of a presentation to their school organization based on our first two readings:

Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Staus and Giroux.

Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the Black-White achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

These books provide two competing arguments of where education is and needs to go next. The presentation format allows students to analyze the texts through their lens of a practitioner. They also learned a great deal about how to make effective presentations (we discussed Edward Tufte’s work about the use and misuse of PowerPoint, Link to Tufte's website ).

Tasks 2-4 required students to use one of three modes of dissemination. Students were put into groups of three for these tasks. Each group member is responsible to individually complete each task using a different medium. The three modes of dissemination are:

1) Written Narrative [5 pages]
2) Audio Cast [Limit of 7 minutes]
3) Digital Story [Limit of 8 minutes]

Here is a description of each task:

Task 2: Self as Leader- “I believe…”
Using one of the methods of dissemination outlined above, construct a story of your own leadership. This story should include the factors that brought you into the educational setting. Describe the type of leader you were, are, and what to become. In the end, you should articulate what you believe about school leadership. [This concept is based on the National Public Radio “I Believe” series, Link to NPR I Believe series].

Task 3: Artifacts of Leadership in your Educational Setting
Using one of the methods of dissemination outlined above, gather artifacts that describe the leadership vision and mission in your organization. Use these artifacts to describe the type of leadership that is currently reflected in your educational setting. Artifacts can and should take many forms. Artifacts may include pictures, structures, minutes, etc. that represent important aspects of leadership in your educational setting.

Task 4: Educational Leadership in the Literature
Each group is assigned a set of literature to analyze. Using one of the methods of dissemination outlined above, each member will provide a representation of their literature analysis. The four clusters of literature are: Leadership and Student Achievement, Leadership and Social Justice, Leadership Style, and Leadership and Organizations

In the end, each student will have used all three modes of dissemination. Students were provided short tutorials on audio and video editing during and in addition to class. They were encouraged to use any program of their choosing and to seek the assistance for others more technically advanced.

Last week in class we shared Task 2. They were unbelievable! We listened to a number of audio casts and watch three digital stories. They were all very unique, but they all had a common element- they were truly powerful. Some projects were simply made using a digital recorder or recording over PowerPoint slides. Others used editing software to create a very dynamic project.

Upon reflection, students said they felt liberated to have the freedom to express themselves in their own unique way. Additionally, students found utility for their work as school leaders. A few students initially felt relieved they were going to be able to create an audio project rather than another written assignment. These students soon found out that an eloquent audio cast first requires a rich written narrative.

In case you are wondering about Task 5- it is a traditional writing assignment. Students are given a story about Robin Hood. Hood is losing control of his Band of Merrymen. The task is to analyze (through the use of literature) his predicament and to present a new plan of action.

Finally, I use Podcasts between each class. Students subscribe to the Podcast through their music program. Most often they involve administrative reminders- e.g. what to read for next week. However, I have been conducting interviews with authors of many of the articles we are reading for class. This has provided students with context and a voice as they read. For example, students read Ahnee-Benham, M. (2002). An alternative perspective of educational leadership for change: Reflections on Native/Indigenous ways of knowing. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 133-166). Dordrecht: Khower Academic Publishing. I interviewed Dr. Benham with my iPod not about the content of the article, but rather her rationale for writing through a critical lens and how this type of work can help current practitioners. I also had the opportunity to interview Dr. Francisco Guajardo the University of Texas Pan American. Francisco discussed his use of digital stories with the youth-based organization he began with his brother (Miguel Guajardo, assistant professor at Texas State University) in South Texas called Llano Grande (Link to Llano Grande website).

A sample of my weekly Podcast (the interview with Franciso Guajardo) and a sample digital story from a student in my class (Quick Time format) can be downloaded from: Link to PodCast and Digital Story.

I have learned a great deal about how technology can be infused at the graduate education level. My hope is to model and expect this type of work in order for current and future educational leaders to do the same in their school settings. I look forward to hearing your comments.