Are School Supervisors Necessary?

An interesting debate broke out at Accountable Talk over the suggestion that one way to improve the schools is to fire all the administrators. Yesterday, I posted a comment from a substitute friend of mine who commented to the teachers how nice and relaxed the school seemed and was told the principal had been out for quite a while. One of the admin/hacks made some comments about letting the teachers or kids run the school, as if that is equivalent – the typical view so many paternalistic admins have of teachers – they're big children.

AT, NYC Educator and Chaz talked about whether teachers should run schools or are better being in the classroom. The principal I met in Spain who was elected for a 3 year term by colleagues, parents and even students, did teach a few periods a day. You can hire people to do schedules and the scut work. I've known many school secretaries who I would trust to run the basic school functions – and they often do. But a principal should be the instructional leader and focus on that and teaching is part of that process. Teachers should have a major say in who this person is.

Teachers should have a major role in running schools. They have the most vested interest in the school being well run. Even more than parents, who are mostly concerned with their own child and have no long-term career like commitment to a school that teachers have.

Some of my leftist friends who view teachers strictly as workers would take exception to this position. They say that in a capitalist society that denies the kids who struggle the most the funds and resources to succeed, teachers taking on this role are doomed to failure and they should take on the classic role of workers struggling against the bosses. And they may be right.

The UFT, on the other hand, takes the position that teachers should be professionals and collaborate, but not aspire to run things, which has proven to be a lose-lose position for the teachers of NYC and wherever this philosophy has taken root.

I would come half way if teachers could at least control who the principal would be, even if they don't run the school directly. Thus, some schools would choose a business person if the teachers wanted to control the instructional component themselves, while schools with more inexperienced staffs might prefer a strong instructional leader.

Related
About 12 years ago I suggested to the Delegate Assembly that we oppose tenure for administrators - somewhat with tongue in cheek and with some humor. I made the point that a major reason teachers needed tenure was to protect us from bad admins.

I may have gotten about 5 votes because the Unity machine, which always seems to be awfully worried about those poor admins, opposed it. Maybe because so many Unity hacks become supervisors themselves.

My point was, why give strength and make it harder to remove people who were often teachers' major enemies?

After the meeting, Sandy Feldman, in the only time she ever said a word to me, came over laughing and shook my hand, saying how she agreed with what I said but couldn't do it politically. She even offered me space in the NY Teacher to make the same points.

It was an interesting insight into Sandy's roots, which were as a real teacher involved in organizing a union in the late 50's and early 60's. While she and Shanker were certainly part of the problems we face today, that spirit for what it was worth, has been missing under the Weingarten regime. One reason why a teacher union leader should have been a real teacher. Maybe a chapter leader who has to face real problems at the micro level before tackling the bigger issues.

Some say Mike Mulgrew, rumored to be Randi's successor, has some of that. If he does, I'll bet wearing the Unity crown will wear that attitude away pretty quickly. But here's hoping I'm wrong.