Study: Get more creative in recruiting principals

Urban school districts aren't doing enough to recruit and pay great school leaders,  according to a new study by the Thomas Fordham Institute titled  "Lacking Leaders:  The Challenges of Principal Recruitment,  Selection and Placement."

The DC-based education research and advocacy group  (funded by the usual list of reform philanthropies) studied five urban districts that have been working to improve their principal processes.  I was guessing Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools might be among them,  especially since the institute teamed up with Public Impact of Chapel Hill, which has worked with CMS.  But the descriptions of districts,  which are given pseudonyms such as Reformville and Urbanopolis as part of an anonymity agreement to ensure candor,  don't match.

Still,  the issues loom large here as the summer leadership churn cranks up.  "Leaders must deal with everything from overstretched budgets to mediocre teachers to unruly (and potentially dangerous) students, not to mention heavy pressure to boost academic results (without, of course, 'teaching to the test,' much less engaging in even more dubious practices),"  the report says.  They get little autonomy,  often make little more than classroom teachers and face grueling accountability demands,  it continues.

The researchers conclude that the five districts,  which they describe as pioneers,  are too quick hire from within,  rather than making an energetic and systemic search for the best candidates from other districts and sectors.  Some officials told researchers they'd had limited success with finding outsiders who understand the local culture and stick around,  while others said tapping outsiders over assistant principals in the district hurts morale.

The Fordham Institute and the Broad Foundation issued a 2003  "manifesto"  urging districts to look for noneducators with strong leadership skills.  The latest report also pushes the idea that a strong corporate leader could make a great principal,  so long as there's an instructional expert on the administrative team.

"We acknowledge that private firms do not face the same licensure constraints as school districts, so cross-sector recruitment in public education is apt to be harder" than in corporate hiring,  the report says. "But policymakers could change those licensure rules. And the takeaway is the same: great leaders can succeed across sectors."

I don't think I've seen CMS recruit a principal from outside education,  and the district had some setbacks with a couple of HR directors hired from corporate America.  Superintendent Heath Morrision does seems to be searching outside CMS for principals:  A scan of announcements this spring and summer shows seven from within CMS,  three from adjacent districts and one from Tennessee.

The report also calls for compensation that's more in line with corporate pay,  turning principalships into  "phenomenal job opportunities."

"Districts should also see the principal’s job as the year-round position that it is and treat  —  and 
compensate  —  it more like the executive role that it’s become,"  the report says.  "Too costly, you say? Think of it this way: the United States employs roughly 100,000 principals. If we gave each of them a $100,000 raise, the total price tag would amount to $10 billion—obviously not chump change. But that’s less than 2 percent of the K–12 public school budget—and $5 billion less than the total new cost estimated to fund President Obama’s pre-K plan."

Update: The Wallace Foundation,  which has been working with CMS on its  "principal pipeline"  since 2011,  announced today that it will provide additional money to support principal supervisors in hopes of developing a larger corps of strong principals.

What's real message of urban district scores?

Before we all break for the holiday, I wanted to pass along some interesting posts on this week's "nation's report card"  tally of how 21 urban districts fared on national reading and math exams.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools rated high compared with the other districts on the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress,  though proficiency rates remain frustratingly low across the country,  especially for low-income and minority students.  As I noted in my article,  CMS' large numbers of white and middle-class students compared with most other districts contributed to its high rankings.

Paul Hill of the University of Washington's Center on Reinventing Public Education elaborated on that issue in a Friday blog post.

"It is tempting to squeeze the urban NAEP scores for evidence about what city is doing better or worse than other cities. But the big messages are that everyone's scores are very bad, and that cities with the highest concentrations of low-income and minority kids do the worst,"  Hill writes.  "Some cities have gotten unstuck from the bottom and are regressing a little bit to the mean. That's better than staying stuck, but unless those cities increase a lot faster, and keep improving for a long time, most of their disadvantaged students will not be ready for higher education or good-paying jobs."

"The deep message here is that nobody knows how to educate large numbers of disadvantaged kids successfully. A new curriculum or teacher training initiative can move the needle for a while, but results then level out. A great school can do wonders for a few kids, but efforts to replicate are seldom as successful. As a country, we still haven't accepted the core fact that this problem remains unsolved."

Andy Smarick of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute also took a dim view of the results and the cheerleading that ensued. He blogged that  "today is a day to be sad for millions of disadvantaged kids,"  not to celebrate.  He also noted that winners and finalists in the Broad Prize for Urban Education competition fared poorly  (though he didn't mention CMS, the 2011 winner).

Robin Lake of the CRPE called for expanding the data,  especially on cities that have some of the most innovative approaches to urban education,  including extensive use of charter schools. 

"The NAEP TUDA has effectively focused our attention on cities, where reforms are most urgently needed, but the data don’t tell us what mayors and civic leaders across the country need to know: which cities are most quickly and equitably increasing students’ access to high-quality public schools,"  Lake wrote.  "Our cities have long since moved past the notion of districts as the sole provider of public education. It’s time that our assessment and evaluation systems do, too."