Amalia Cudeiro
Ed.D. USP
A senior executive with Focus On
Results, Amalia Cudeiro was most
recently one of five deputy
superintendents for the Boston Public
Schools, where her primary
responsibilities included recruitment,
selection, training, professional
development, supervision, and evaluation
of principals, headmasters, directors, and
cluster leaders.
During her tenure in the Boston Public
Schools, Cudeiro was instrumental in the
development and implementation of the
school district's Principal Evaluation and
Accountability Process.
Additionally, in collaboration with the
Center for Leadership Development, she
engaged in the creation and
implementation of a professional
development program for current
principals and a principal preparation
program to hire and train new principal
leaders.
Cudeiro served for many years as a
principal in California public school
systems, in the Santa Monica and
Baldwin Park school districts. Later, after
completing her doctorate at Harvard
University, she was one of only eight
selected nationally to study in Harvard's
Urban Superintendents Program.
Born in Cuba and educated in Spain
through high school, Cudeiro completed
all of her university work in the United
States and possesses the strengths of
being fully bilingual and biliterate, with
special sensitivity and experience in
issues of valuing diversity and bilingual
education.
Encyclopedia - Britannica Online
Encyclopedia -
10:58pmPHOTO (COLOR): Libia Gil.
PHOTO (COLOR): Amalia Cudeiro (right).
~~~~~~~~.
By Amalia Cudeiro.
Amalia Cudeiro is a senior executive with
Focus on Results, ...
www.britannica.com/magazine/print?
query=tame&id=56&minGrade=&maxGrade=
American Association of School
Administrators - Publications - The ...
Leading Student Achievement By By
Amalia Cudeiro ...... Gwen Gross, Rene
Townsend, Peggy Lynch, Pat Novotney,
Benita Roberts, Lorraine Garcy and Libia
Gil ...
www.aasa.org/publications/saissuedetail.cfm?
ItemNumber=1004 - 991k -
American Association of School
Administrators
December 2005
Features
Leading Student Achievement
A study finds superintendents affecting
instructional gains through their strong
relationships with principals
By By Amalia Cudeiro
The superintendent’s role today is so
complex, deals with so many competing
issues and is measured by such high
standards tied to accountability for results
that few are willing to tackle the job these
days. With such a seemingly impossible
job to tame, can superintendents truly
affect student achievement?
As a student in Harvard University’s
Urban Superintendents Program, I
explored that question in more depth by
studying superintendents who had,
indeed, made a difference in student
learning. With the help of Harvard faculty, I
identified district leaders who had
successfully spearheaded efforts to
improve student achievement.
Libia Gil, formerly of Chula Vista, Calif.,
Elementary School District, and Diana
Lam, formerly of Providence, R.I., Public
Schools, were two of the leaders who met
the criteria. In addition to these two
superintendents from my study, I also
considered the work of Tom Payzant,
superintendent of Boston Public Schools,
whom I had the opportunity to work
closely with for two years as one of his
deputy superintendents. In all three
cases, these superintendents have been
able to steadily increase student
achievement as measured by
standardized tests and/or benchmark
assessments, narrow the achievement
gap, and with the exception of Chula
Vista, which is a K-6 district, increase the
high school graduation rate.
I interviewed, observed and collected data
about these three superintendents over a
course of four years. I also interviewed
their leadership teams and the principals
in their districts to determine what the
superintendents did that affected their
own roles as instructional leaders. What
did I conclude? Yes, superintendents can
have a positive impact on student
learning, primarily through the promotion,
support and development of principals as
instructional leaders.
Promoting Principals
Many principals say they spend more
time on management, paperwork and
meetings than on instructional leadership
because that’s what they perceive to be
the district’s priorities. However, the
superintendents I studied identified their
first priority as promoting the principal’s
role as instructional leader. They did this
by using several different strategies.
First, the superintendents placed the
focus on student learning by establishing
a districtwide vision centered on meeting
student learning needs and by tying
district goals for student performance to
that vision. They also engaged principals
in discussions about holding high
expectations for all students.
Second, the superintendents set clear
expectations by establishing the primacy
of the principals’ instructional leadership
role verbally and in writing. They clearly
defined what it means for principals to be
instructional leaders and established
standards tied to evaluation and, in one
case, merit pay.
Finally, the superintendents held
principals accountable for being
instructional leaders. They implemented
site visits and walkthroughs that were
focused on instructional practices and
followed up with written feedback. Further,
they aligned the principal supervision and
evaluation process with the instructional
leadership focus and included in the
process the review of student
performance data. It was not enough to
seem to be doing the right things;
principals were held accountable for
generating measurable improvement in
student learning.
Payzant outlined his plan for whole district
improvement in a public document titled
“Focus On Children.” He made
professional development in the area of
literacy and mathematics a priority in the
district, established measurable student
outcome goals in each school and clearly
articulated the key role principals and
their instructional leadership teams
played in guiding and supervising the
implementation of promising practices.
One principal in the Boston Public
Schools said, “The success we have had
is directly connected to our system’s
relentless focus on math and literacy and
connecting all professional development
to those areas. It enabled me to provide
the instructional leadership I knew we
needed, especially with the support of our
collaborative coaching and learning
model.”
Principals acknowledged the need for a
districtwide focus in the area of literacy
and mathematics and knew that
walkthroughs, both collegial and
evaluative, were aimed at finding
evidence of how well these practices
were being implemented. Payzant
conducted instruction-focused
walkthroughs in buildings and was
responsible, along with his deputies, for
principal evaluation.
Supporting Principals
It is perhaps easier to take the first steps
to promote principals as instructional
leaders than it is to continuously support
them in that role. Lam, Gil and Payzant
used several strategies to help principals
grow as instructional leaders.
First, they supported the principals by
reorganizing central services. They hired
assistant superintendents or deputy
superintendents who had been effective
principals themselves and saw their role
as both supportive and supervisory. The
assistant superintendents or deputies
visited schools and met with principals
often to discuss the progress each
school was making in meeting student
achievement goals, to problem solve
obstacles that prevented principals from
exercising their instructional leadership
and to monitor the implementation of
promising instructional practices.
In addition, two out of the three
superintendents reorganized
departments to be more responsive and
accessible, including moving some
offices to school sites, arranging
meetings between departments and the
schools they served and requiring that
each department set specific measurable
goals for improving the way they
responded to school requests.
One principal who worked under Gil in
Chula Vista explained her situation this
way: “We are truly fortunate in this district.
… I can go directly to the superintendent
or any of the assistant superintendents
and know that I can walk away with a
sense of direction. I couldn’t ask for
greater support so I can do my job.”
Second, these superintendents
increased direct support to the principals,
giving them more time to be effective
instructional leaders and specific tools to
help them maintain that focus. For
example, to support the principals in
stabilizing their staff, the superintendents
implemented procedures to help them
handle teacher dismissals and
mandatory teacher seniority transfers. In
addition, the superintendents provided on-
site staff developers or coaches to work
with teachers and implemented a support
structure to reduce the amount of time
principals spent on administrivia and
paperwork.
“[Diana Lam] told us early on that we
were going to be her focus, that she was
going to give us a great deal of
professional development that was going
to enable us to be facilitators in our
buildings for instructional change,” a
principal in Providence said. “She didn’t
expect us to do it alone and she was
going to support us all the way.”
In Providence, Lam implemented a
districtwide structure for instructional
improvement. This plan was based on
key principles of learning. All district staff
members were trained in these
instructional principles and practices and
principals were held accountable for
ensuring their implementation in the
classrooms.
To support the principals in this role, Lam
reorganized how the central office worked
with principals. For example, principals in
the district had never met one another.
They were only brought together once a
year for a meeting labeled by principals
as a “nuts and bolts” meeting that had
nothing to do with instructional
improvement or student achievement.
Lam changed this immediately and
scheduled monthly meetings and study
groups with principals to give them
opportunity to learn together, engage in
problem solving and share successes.
In addition, lead principal positions, with
significant pay differentials, were created
to allow successful principals to mentor
their struggling colleagues. Principals
were encouraged to request additional
support as needed, and many took
advantage of the offer.
A lead principal in Providence explained,
“We are used as mentors and we are
starting to see people’s strengths and
weaknesses in a collegial way … really
encouraging people to come out to our
schools and do learning walks. … I think
colleagues have taken this idea of lead
principals seriously and are using us if
they have questions, need somebody to
sound off, get feedback and be a critical
friend.”
Developing Principals
Even effective principals do not have all of
the expertise necessary to ensure every
student is achieving at a high level.
Principals must be seen—and must see
themselves—as learners. Lam, Gil and
Payzant helped develop instructional
leadership skills in their principals by
providing training in proven practices.
For example, they used external
consultants with a proven track record to
provide targeted professional
development in instructional leadership.
They also implemented collegial principal
walkthroughs and site visits and provided
opportunities for peer-assisted learning
through principal support groups, study
groups, and in one case, informal book
study clubs.
In Chula Vista, Gil worked hard to create a
district of independent schools. Part of
this approach entailed assigning as
many resources as possible directly to
the schools, which resulted in a thinly
staffed central office.
To develop principals’ instructional
leadership skills and practices in this
rapidly growing district, which now ranks
as the largest elementary district in
California, Gil brought in a team of
external consultants to provide monthly
training to principals. This program,
funded by the Ball Foundation, included
in-depth professional development
training for principals and teacher
instructional leadership teams in
identifying an instructional focus; creating
targeted professional development plans
tied to specific, measurable student
outcome goals; and building learning
communities.
“Our instructional leadership team and I
had the opportunity to engage in
challenging and yet rewarding
conversations centered on developing a
joint sense of responsibility for improving
learning for all students. [We focused on]
identifying best practices for all
classrooms, utilizing data to make
informed decisions, and aligning our
instructional program and resources
around our work in improving our literacy
program,” one principal explains. “The
work was hard but the results were
significant.”
To support this work and further build on
the independence of the schools, peer
groups of six or seven principals met
regularly throughout the year to discuss
their progress and challenges. They also
contributed 25 percent of the formal
evaluation of their peer group members.
A series of dip-stick walkthroughs
conducted by teams of teachers and
administrators in the fall and then again
in the spring helped track improvements
in the schools.
A Chula Vista principal explains, “We now
interact not only with each other more
effectively, but with other schools in our
district. We have truly developed a
‘community of learners’ as we all work to
move our instructional program forward.”
Focus on Results
Superintendents or districts considering
moving forward with a focus on
instructional leadership should
determine the local context and decide
which of the measures discussed here
will have the greatest positive impact. All
of the superintendents I studied have
seen consistent growth in student
achievement in their districts, although
none of them used every strategy
discussed here. Each superintendent,
regardless of the strategies used,
however, promoted, developed and
supported principals as instructional
leaders. Addressing fewer than all three
of these points will reduce the
effectiveness of any attempt.
A great deal more can be learned and
understood about how successful
superintendents lead their districts
toward improved student learning. As a
member of the Focus on Results team
during the past four years, I, along with
several partners, have had the opportunity
to support the powerful work of several
outstanding superintendents who have
employed the strategies mentioned
above.
For example, we have worked closely with
Angus McBeath, superintendent of
Edmonton Public Schools in Alberta,
Canada, as he focused on promoting,
supporting and developing principals. In
addition, he has provided international
leadership in site-based management
and parent choice, which together are
helping the district to make great strides
toward becoming recognized for
outstanding student achievement.
Superintendent Edwin Dias has led a
transformational effort in the Gilroy, Calif.,
Unified School District with a specific
focus on principals. His leadership is
resulting in dramatic improvement in
student learning, particularly with his
large number of English language
learners.
These and other superintendents with
whom we have worked have convinced
us that superintendents can play a major
role in improving student learning if they
are willing to focus their energies and
resources on that specific result.
Amalia Cudeiro is a senior executive with
Focus on Results, 198 Tremont Street,
Suite 408, Boston, MA 02116. E-mail:
acudeiro@focusonresults.net. The author
acknowledges the help of colleagues Jeff
Nelsen, Jan Leight and Joe Palumbo.
Ed.D. USP
A senior executive with Focus On
Results, Amalia Cudeiro was most
recently one of five deputy
superintendents for the Boston Public
Schools, where her primary
responsibilities included recruitment,
selection, training, professional
development, supervision, and evaluation
of principals, headmasters, directors, and
cluster leaders.
During her tenure in the Boston Public
Schools, Cudeiro was instrumental in the
development and implementation of the
school district's Principal Evaluation and
Accountability Process.
Additionally, in collaboration with the
Center for Leadership Development, she
engaged in the creation and
implementation of a professional
development program for current
principals and a principal preparation
program to hire and train new principal
leaders.
Cudeiro served for many years as a
principal in California public school
systems, in the Santa Monica and
Baldwin Park school districts. Later, after
completing her doctorate at Harvard
University, she was one of only eight
selected nationally to study in Harvard's
Urban Superintendents Program.
Born in Cuba and educated in Spain
through high school, Cudeiro completed
all of her university work in the United
States and possesses the strengths of
being fully bilingual and biliterate, with
special sensitivity and experience in
issues of valuing diversity and bilingual
education.
Encyclopedia - Britannica Online
Encyclopedia -
10:58pmPHOTO (COLOR): Libia Gil.
PHOTO (COLOR): Amalia Cudeiro (right).
~~~~~~~~.
By Amalia Cudeiro.
Amalia Cudeiro is a senior executive with
Focus on Results, ...
www.britannica.com/magazine/print?
query=tame&id=56&minGrade=&maxGrade=
American Association of School
Administrators - Publications - The ...
Leading Student Achievement By By
Amalia Cudeiro ...... Gwen Gross, Rene
Townsend, Peggy Lynch, Pat Novotney,
Benita Roberts, Lorraine Garcy and Libia
Gil ...
www.aasa.org/publications/saissuedetail.cfm?
ItemNumber=1004 - 991k -
American Association of School
Administrators
December 2005
Features
Leading Student Achievement
A study finds superintendents affecting
instructional gains through their strong
relationships with principals
By By Amalia Cudeiro
The superintendent’s role today is so
complex, deals with so many competing
issues and is measured by such high
standards tied to accountability for results
that few are willing to tackle the job these
days. With such a seemingly impossible
job to tame, can superintendents truly
affect student achievement?
As a student in Harvard University’s
Urban Superintendents Program, I
explored that question in more depth by
studying superintendents who had,
indeed, made a difference in student
learning. With the help of Harvard faculty, I
identified district leaders who had
successfully spearheaded efforts to
improve student achievement.
Libia Gil, formerly of Chula Vista, Calif.,
Elementary School District, and Diana
Lam, formerly of Providence, R.I., Public
Schools, were two of the leaders who met
the criteria. In addition to these two
superintendents from my study, I also
considered the work of Tom Payzant,
superintendent of Boston Public Schools,
whom I had the opportunity to work
closely with for two years as one of his
deputy superintendents. In all three
cases, these superintendents have been
able to steadily increase student
achievement as measured by
standardized tests and/or benchmark
assessments, narrow the achievement
gap, and with the exception of Chula
Vista, which is a K-6 district, increase the
high school graduation rate.
I interviewed, observed and collected data
about these three superintendents over a
course of four years. I also interviewed
their leadership teams and the principals
in their districts to determine what the
superintendents did that affected their
own roles as instructional leaders. What
did I conclude? Yes, superintendents can
have a positive impact on student
learning, primarily through the promotion,
support and development of principals as
instructional leaders.
Promoting Principals
Many principals say they spend more
time on management, paperwork and
meetings than on instructional leadership
because that’s what they perceive to be
the district’s priorities. However, the
superintendents I studied identified their
first priority as promoting the principal’s
role as instructional leader. They did this
by using several different strategies.
First, the superintendents placed the
focus on student learning by establishing
a districtwide vision centered on meeting
student learning needs and by tying
district goals for student performance to
that vision. They also engaged principals
in discussions about holding high
expectations for all students.
Second, the superintendents set clear
expectations by establishing the primacy
of the principals’ instructional leadership
role verbally and in writing. They clearly
defined what it means for principals to be
instructional leaders and established
standards tied to evaluation and, in one
case, merit pay.
Finally, the superintendents held
principals accountable for being
instructional leaders. They implemented
site visits and walkthroughs that were
focused on instructional practices and
followed up with written feedback. Further,
they aligned the principal supervision and
evaluation process with the instructional
leadership focus and included in the
process the review of student
performance data. It was not enough to
seem to be doing the right things;
principals were held accountable for
generating measurable improvement in
student learning.
Payzant outlined his plan for whole district
improvement in a public document titled
“Focus On Children.” He made
professional development in the area of
literacy and mathematics a priority in the
district, established measurable student
outcome goals in each school and clearly
articulated the key role principals and
their instructional leadership teams
played in guiding and supervising the
implementation of promising practices.
One principal in the Boston Public
Schools said, “The success we have had
is directly connected to our system’s
relentless focus on math and literacy and
connecting all professional development
to those areas. It enabled me to provide
the instructional leadership I knew we
needed, especially with the support of our
collaborative coaching and learning
model.”
Principals acknowledged the need for a
districtwide focus in the area of literacy
and mathematics and knew that
walkthroughs, both collegial and
evaluative, were aimed at finding
evidence of how well these practices
were being implemented. Payzant
conducted instruction-focused
walkthroughs in buildings and was
responsible, along with his deputies, for
principal evaluation.
Supporting Principals
It is perhaps easier to take the first steps
to promote principals as instructional
leaders than it is to continuously support
them in that role. Lam, Gil and Payzant
used several strategies to help principals
grow as instructional leaders.
First, they supported the principals by
reorganizing central services. They hired
assistant superintendents or deputy
superintendents who had been effective
principals themselves and saw their role
as both supportive and supervisory. The
assistant superintendents or deputies
visited schools and met with principals
often to discuss the progress each
school was making in meeting student
achievement goals, to problem solve
obstacles that prevented principals from
exercising their instructional leadership
and to monitor the implementation of
promising instructional practices.
In addition, two out of the three
superintendents reorganized
departments to be more responsive and
accessible, including moving some
offices to school sites, arranging
meetings between departments and the
schools they served and requiring that
each department set specific measurable
goals for improving the way they
responded to school requests.
One principal who worked under Gil in
Chula Vista explained her situation this
way: “We are truly fortunate in this district.
… I can go directly to the superintendent
or any of the assistant superintendents
and know that I can walk away with a
sense of direction. I couldn’t ask for
greater support so I can do my job.”
Second, these superintendents
increased direct support to the principals,
giving them more time to be effective
instructional leaders and specific tools to
help them maintain that focus. For
example, to support the principals in
stabilizing their staff, the superintendents
implemented procedures to help them
handle teacher dismissals and
mandatory teacher seniority transfers. In
addition, the superintendents provided on-
site staff developers or coaches to work
with teachers and implemented a support
structure to reduce the amount of time
principals spent on administrivia and
paperwork.
“[Diana Lam] told us early on that we
were going to be her focus, that she was
going to give us a great deal of
professional development that was going
to enable us to be facilitators in our
buildings for instructional change,” a
principal in Providence said. “She didn’t
expect us to do it alone and she was
going to support us all the way.”
In Providence, Lam implemented a
districtwide structure for instructional
improvement. This plan was based on
key principles of learning. All district staff
members were trained in these
instructional principles and practices and
principals were held accountable for
ensuring their implementation in the
classrooms.
To support the principals in this role, Lam
reorganized how the central office worked
with principals. For example, principals in
the district had never met one another.
They were only brought together once a
year for a meeting labeled by principals
as a “nuts and bolts” meeting that had
nothing to do with instructional
improvement or student achievement.
Lam changed this immediately and
scheduled monthly meetings and study
groups with principals to give them
opportunity to learn together, engage in
problem solving and share successes.
In addition, lead principal positions, with
significant pay differentials, were created
to allow successful principals to mentor
their struggling colleagues. Principals
were encouraged to request additional
support as needed, and many took
advantage of the offer.
A lead principal in Providence explained,
“We are used as mentors and we are
starting to see people’s strengths and
weaknesses in a collegial way … really
encouraging people to come out to our
schools and do learning walks. … I think
colleagues have taken this idea of lead
principals seriously and are using us if
they have questions, need somebody to
sound off, get feedback and be a critical
friend.”
Developing Principals
Even effective principals do not have all of
the expertise necessary to ensure every
student is achieving at a high level.
Principals must be seen—and must see
themselves—as learners. Lam, Gil and
Payzant helped develop instructional
leadership skills in their principals by
providing training in proven practices.
For example, they used external
consultants with a proven track record to
provide targeted professional
development in instructional leadership.
They also implemented collegial principal
walkthroughs and site visits and provided
opportunities for peer-assisted learning
through principal support groups, study
groups, and in one case, informal book
study clubs.
In Chula Vista, Gil worked hard to create a
district of independent schools. Part of
this approach entailed assigning as
many resources as possible directly to
the schools, which resulted in a thinly
staffed central office.
To develop principals’ instructional
leadership skills and practices in this
rapidly growing district, which now ranks
as the largest elementary district in
California, Gil brought in a team of
external consultants to provide monthly
training to principals. This program,
funded by the Ball Foundation, included
in-depth professional development
training for principals and teacher
instructional leadership teams in
identifying an instructional focus; creating
targeted professional development plans
tied to specific, measurable student
outcome goals; and building learning
communities.
“Our instructional leadership team and I
had the opportunity to engage in
challenging and yet rewarding
conversations centered on developing a
joint sense of responsibility for improving
learning for all students. [We focused on]
identifying best practices for all
classrooms, utilizing data to make
informed decisions, and aligning our
instructional program and resources
around our work in improving our literacy
program,” one principal explains. “The
work was hard but the results were
significant.”
To support this work and further build on
the independence of the schools, peer
groups of six or seven principals met
regularly throughout the year to discuss
their progress and challenges. They also
contributed 25 percent of the formal
evaluation of their peer group members.
A series of dip-stick walkthroughs
conducted by teams of teachers and
administrators in the fall and then again
in the spring helped track improvements
in the schools.
A Chula Vista principal explains, “We now
interact not only with each other more
effectively, but with other schools in our
district. We have truly developed a
‘community of learners’ as we all work to
move our instructional program forward.”
Focus on Results
Superintendents or districts considering
moving forward with a focus on
instructional leadership should
determine the local context and decide
which of the measures discussed here
will have the greatest positive impact. All
of the superintendents I studied have
seen consistent growth in student
achievement in their districts, although
none of them used every strategy
discussed here. Each superintendent,
regardless of the strategies used,
however, promoted, developed and
supported principals as instructional
leaders. Addressing fewer than all three
of these points will reduce the
effectiveness of any attempt.
A great deal more can be learned and
understood about how successful
superintendents lead their districts
toward improved student learning. As a
member of the Focus on Results team
during the past four years, I, along with
several partners, have had the opportunity
to support the powerful work of several
outstanding superintendents who have
employed the strategies mentioned
above.
For example, we have worked closely with
Angus McBeath, superintendent of
Edmonton Public Schools in Alberta,
Canada, as he focused on promoting,
supporting and developing principals. In
addition, he has provided international
leadership in site-based management
and parent choice, which together are
helping the district to make great strides
toward becoming recognized for
outstanding student achievement.
Superintendent Edwin Dias has led a
transformational effort in the Gilroy, Calif.,
Unified School District with a specific
focus on principals. His leadership is
resulting in dramatic improvement in
student learning, particularly with his
large number of English language
learners.
These and other superintendents with
whom we have worked have convinced
us that superintendents can play a major
role in improving student learning if they
are willing to focus their energies and
resources on that specific result.
Amalia Cudeiro is a senior executive with
Focus on Results, 198 Tremont Street,
Suite 408, Boston, MA 02116. E-mail:
acudeiro@focusonresults.net. The author
acknowledges the help of colleagues Jeff
Nelsen, Jan Leight and Joe Palumbo.
How could Amalia Cudeiro do all this research and remain clueless about Libia Gil's
lack of leadership? Her isolation from schools? Her failure to work with principals?
Sure, she got a bunch of administrators to write a book for her, since she herself
seems to be somewhat impaired when it comes to verbal communication, but what
makes Cudeiro think it was anything more than kissing up to the superintendent?
Leading student achievement: a study finds superintendents affecting
instructional gains through their strong relationships with principals
School Administrator,
Dec, 2005 by Amalia Cudeiro
The superintendent's role today is so complex, deals with so many competing issues
and is measured by such high standards tied to accountability for results that few are
willing to tackle the job these days. With such a seemingly impossible job to tame,
can superintendents truly affect student achievement?
As a student in Harvard University's Urban Superintendents Program, I explored that
question in more depth by studying superintendents who had, indeed, made a
difference in student learning. With the help of Harvard faculty, I identified district
leaders who had successfully spearheaded efforts to improve student achievement.
Libia Gil, formerly of Chula Vista, Calif., Elementary School District, and Diana
Lain, formerly of Providence, R.I., Public Schools, were two of the leaders who met
the criteria. In addition to these two superintendents from my study, I also considered
the work of Tom Payzant, superintendent of Boston Public Schools, whom I had the
opportunity to work closely with for two years as one of his deputy superintendents.
In all three cases, these superintendents have been able to steadily increase student
achievement as measured by standardized tests and/or benchmark assessments,
narrow the achievement gap, and with the exception of Chula Vista, which is a K-6
district, increase the high school graduation rate.
I interviewed, observed and collected data about these three superintendents over a
course of four years. I also interviewed their leadership teams and the principals in
their districts to determine what the superintendents did that affected their own roles
as instructional leaders. What did I conclude? Yes, superintendents can have a
positive impact on student learning, primarily through the promotion, support and
development of principals as instructional leaders.
Promoting Principals
Many principals say they spend more time on management, paperwork and meetings
than on instructional leadership because that's what they perceive to be the district's
priorities. However, the superintendents I studied identified their first priority as
promoting the principal's role as instructional leader. They did this by using several
different strategies.
First, the superintendents placed the focus on student learning by establishing a
districtwide vision centered on meeting student learning needs and by tying district
goals for student performance to that vision. They also engaged principals in
discussions about holding high expectations for all students.
Second, the superintendents set clear expectations by establishing the primacy of
the principals' instructional leadership role verbally and in writing. They clearly
defined what it means for principals to be instructional leaders and established
standards tied to evaluation and, in one case, merit pay.
Finally, the superintendents held principals accountable for being instructional
leaders. They implemented site visits and walkthroughs that were focused on
instructional practices and followed up with written feedback. Further, they aligned
the principal supervision and evaluation process with the instructional leadership
focus and included in the process the review of student performance data. It was not
enough to seem to be doing the right things; principals were held accountable for
generating measurable improvement in student learning.
Payzant outlined his plan for whole district improvement in a public document titled
"Focus On Children." He made professional development in the area of literacy and
mathematics a priority in the district, established measurable student outcome goals
in each school and clearly articulated the key role principals and their instructional
leadership teams played in guiding and supervising the implementation of promising
practices.
One principal in the Boston Public Schools said, "The success we have had is
directly connected to our system's relentless focus on math and literacy and
connecting all professional development to those areas. It enabled me to provide the
instructional leadership I knew we needed, especially with the support of our
collaborative coaching and learning model."
Principals acknowledged the need for a districtwide focus in the area of literacy and
mathematics and knew that walkthroughs, both collegial and evaluative, were aimed
at finding evidence of how well these practices were being implemented. Payzant
conducted instruction-focused walkthroughs in buildings and was responsible, along
with his deputies, for principal evaluation.
Supporting Principals
It is perhaps easier to take the first steps to promote principals as instructional
leaders than it is to continuously support them in that role. Lam, Gil and Payzant
used several strategies to help principals grow as instructional leaders.
First, they supported the principals by reorganizing central services. They hired
assistant superintendents or deputy superintendents who had been effective
principals themselves and saw their role as both supportive and supervisory. The
assistant superintendents or deputies visited schools and met with principals often to
discuss the progress each school was making in meeting student achievement goals,
to problem solve obstacles that prevented principals from exercising their
instructional leadership and to monitor the implementation of promising instructional
practices.
lack of leadership? Her isolation from schools? Her failure to work with principals?
Sure, she got a bunch of administrators to write a book for her, since she herself
seems to be somewhat impaired when it comes to verbal communication, but what
makes Cudeiro think it was anything more than kissing up to the superintendent?
Leading student achievement: a study finds superintendents affecting
instructional gains through their strong relationships with principals
School Administrator,
Dec, 2005 by Amalia Cudeiro
The superintendent's role today is so complex, deals with so many competing issues
and is measured by such high standards tied to accountability for results that few are
willing to tackle the job these days. With such a seemingly impossible job to tame,
can superintendents truly affect student achievement?
As a student in Harvard University's Urban Superintendents Program, I explored that
question in more depth by studying superintendents who had, indeed, made a
difference in student learning. With the help of Harvard faculty, I identified district
leaders who had successfully spearheaded efforts to improve student achievement.
Libia Gil, formerly of Chula Vista, Calif., Elementary School District, and Diana
Lain, formerly of Providence, R.I., Public Schools, were two of the leaders who met
the criteria. In addition to these two superintendents from my study, I also considered
the work of Tom Payzant, superintendent of Boston Public Schools, whom I had the
opportunity to work closely with for two years as one of his deputy superintendents.
In all three cases, these superintendents have been able to steadily increase student
achievement as measured by standardized tests and/or benchmark assessments,
narrow the achievement gap, and with the exception of Chula Vista, which is a K-6
district, increase the high school graduation rate.
I interviewed, observed and collected data about these three superintendents over a
course of four years. I also interviewed their leadership teams and the principals in
their districts to determine what the superintendents did that affected their own roles
as instructional leaders. What did I conclude? Yes, superintendents can have a
positive impact on student learning, primarily through the promotion, support and
development of principals as instructional leaders.
Promoting Principals
Many principals say they spend more time on management, paperwork and meetings
than on instructional leadership because that's what they perceive to be the district's
priorities. However, the superintendents I studied identified their first priority as
promoting the principal's role as instructional leader. They did this by using several
different strategies.
First, the superintendents placed the focus on student learning by establishing a
districtwide vision centered on meeting student learning needs and by tying district
goals for student performance to that vision. They also engaged principals in
discussions about holding high expectations for all students.
Second, the superintendents set clear expectations by establishing the primacy of
the principals' instructional leadership role verbally and in writing. They clearly
defined what it means for principals to be instructional leaders and established
standards tied to evaluation and, in one case, merit pay.
Finally, the superintendents held principals accountable for being instructional
leaders. They implemented site visits and walkthroughs that were focused on
instructional practices and followed up with written feedback. Further, they aligned
the principal supervision and evaluation process with the instructional leadership
focus and included in the process the review of student performance data. It was not
enough to seem to be doing the right things; principals were held accountable for
generating measurable improvement in student learning.
Payzant outlined his plan for whole district improvement in a public document titled
"Focus On Children." He made professional development in the area of literacy and
mathematics a priority in the district, established measurable student outcome goals
in each school and clearly articulated the key role principals and their instructional
leadership teams played in guiding and supervising the implementation of promising
practices.
One principal in the Boston Public Schools said, "The success we have had is
directly connected to our system's relentless focus on math and literacy and
connecting all professional development to those areas. It enabled me to provide the
instructional leadership I knew we needed, especially with the support of our
collaborative coaching and learning model."
Principals acknowledged the need for a districtwide focus in the area of literacy and
mathematics and knew that walkthroughs, both collegial and evaluative, were aimed
at finding evidence of how well these practices were being implemented. Payzant
conducted instruction-focused walkthroughs in buildings and was responsible, along
with his deputies, for principal evaluation.
Supporting Principals
It is perhaps easier to take the first steps to promote principals as instructional
leaders than it is to continuously support them in that role. Lam, Gil and Payzant
used several strategies to help principals grow as instructional leaders.
First, they supported the principals by reorganizing central services. They hired
assistant superintendents or deputy superintendents who had been effective
principals themselves and saw their role as both supportive and supervisory. The
assistant superintendents or deputies visited schools and met with principals often to
discuss the progress each school was making in meeting student achievement goals,
to problem solve obstacles that prevented principals from exercising their
instructional leadership and to monitor the implementation of promising instructional
practices.
Experts in education:
Amalia Cudeiro clueless--or cunning?
Amalia Cudeiro clueless--or cunning?
Leading student achievement: a
study finds superintendents
...With the help of Harvard faculty,
I [Amalia Cudeiro] identified district
leaders who had successfully
spearheaded efforts to improve
student achievement. Libia Gil,
formerly ...
study finds superintendents
...With the help of Harvard faculty,
I [Amalia Cudeiro] identified district
leaders who had successfully
spearheaded efforts to improve
student achievement. Libia Gil,
formerly ...
Update June 18, 2009:
Harvard Graduate
School of Education
Urban Superintendents
Program
Amalia
Cudeiro-Nelsen, Ed.D.
Associate in
Education
acudeiro@targetedleadership.net
Amalia Cudeiro-Nelsen
Co-founder and partner with
Targeted Leadership Consulting,
Dr. Cudeiro was one of the deputy
superintendents for the Boston
Public Schools, where her primary
responsibilities included
recruitment, selection, training,
professional development,
supervision, and evaluation of
principals, headmasters, directors,
and cluster leaders. During her
tenure in the Boston Public
Schools, Dr. Cudeiro was
instrumental in the development
and implementation of the school
district's Principal Evaluation and
Accountability Process.
Dr. Cudeiro served for many years
as a principal in California public
school systems, in the Santa
Monica and Baldwin Park school
districts. She has also been a
Master Practitioner at UCLA. Later,
she was one of only eight selected
nationally for a fellowship to
complete her doctorate in the
Urban Superintendent Program at
Harvard University, where for the
past four years she has served as
Adjunct Professor. Currently, Dr.
Cudiero is working with school
districts across the nation, such as
Chula Vista (CA) Elementary
School District and Elizabeth (NJ)
Public Schools to improve student
achievement.
downloaded 06-19-09
School of Education
Urban Superintendents
Program
Amalia
Cudeiro-Nelsen, Ed.D.
Associate in
Education
acudeiro@targetedleadership.net
Amalia Cudeiro-Nelsen
Co-founder and partner with
Targeted Leadership Consulting,
Dr. Cudeiro was one of the deputy
superintendents for the Boston
Public Schools, where her primary
responsibilities included
recruitment, selection, training,
professional development,
supervision, and evaluation of
principals, headmasters, directors,
and cluster leaders. During her
tenure in the Boston Public
Schools, Dr. Cudeiro was
instrumental in the development
and implementation of the school
district's Principal Evaluation and
Accountability Process.
Dr. Cudeiro served for many years
as a principal in California public
school systems, in the Santa
Monica and Baldwin Park school
districts. She has also been a
Master Practitioner at UCLA. Later,
she was one of only eight selected
nationally for a fellowship to
complete her doctorate in the
Urban Superintendent Program at
Harvard University, where for the
past four years she has served as
Adjunct Professor. Currently, Dr.
Cudiero is working with school
districts across the nation, such as
Chula Vista (CA) Elementary
School District and Elizabeth (NJ)
Public Schools to improve student
achievement.
downloaded 06-19-09
Maura Larkins' note to Dr.
Cudeiro:
It's the teachers that make the
difference, not the
administrators, and I've never
seen a good teacher
evaluation system. The current
system is haphazard and
politicized.
Here's my plan:
SUGGESTED TEACHER
EVALUATION PLAN
Teachers would be evaluated
through observations by
experienced teachers
from other school districts (to
limit the role of politics). The
evaluators wouldn't even know
beforehand whom they're
going to evaluate.
New teachers would
accompany and assist the
evaluators because observing
and assessing is a great way to
learn.
There would be a standard list
of traits to look for, and every
teacher would be given a score
which would be based on:
I. the observations described
above;
II. students' test scores;
III. standardized tests taken by
the teachers themselves.
The tests given to teachers
would be used to determine
(a) which teachers need
training; and
(b) which teachers can do the
training.
What should be done with the
final scores?
1. Average teachers would
stay in the standard teaching
job, but they would have the
possibility of improving their
scores and rising to master
teacher level.
2. Every classroom would have
one standard teacher, while
the more effective master
teachers would be given
responsibility for several
classrooms, teaching part time
in each of these classrooms,
and taking responsibility for
guiding and educating the
standard teachers.
3. The more effective teachers
should be paid two to three
times what the regular
teachers are paid in order to
attract really smart people--
people who could have been
doctors or physicists.
Schools need to start
evaluating teachers effectively
whether or not any teacher is
ever laid off.
Teachers are leaving
schools all the time, and it's
often the best teachers who
are pushed out or who choose
to leave. (Guillermo Gomez
and I both left Chula Vista
Elementary School District.) An
unhealthy teacher culture that
fears change and protects
mediocre and poor performers
causes many good teachers to
leave, including some who are
simply too disgusted to stay.
We can't fire weak teachers
because we don't have anyone
to replace them, but
professional observers should
evaluate all teachers, and poor
performers should be
supported and supervised by
good teachers.
Cudeiro:
It's the teachers that make the
difference, not the
administrators, and I've never
seen a good teacher
evaluation system. The current
system is haphazard and
politicized.
Here's my plan:
SUGGESTED TEACHER
EVALUATION PLAN
Teachers would be evaluated
through observations by
experienced teachers
from other school districts (to
limit the role of politics). The
evaluators wouldn't even know
beforehand whom they're
going to evaluate.
New teachers would
accompany and assist the
evaluators because observing
and assessing is a great way to
learn.
There would be a standard list
of traits to look for, and every
teacher would be given a score
which would be based on:
I. the observations described
above;
II. students' test scores;
III. standardized tests taken by
the teachers themselves.
The tests given to teachers
would be used to determine
(a) which teachers need
training; and
(b) which teachers can do the
training.
What should be done with the
final scores?
1. Average teachers would
stay in the standard teaching
job, but they would have the
possibility of improving their
scores and rising to master
teacher level.
2. Every classroom would have
one standard teacher, while
the more effective master
teachers would be given
responsibility for several
classrooms, teaching part time
in each of these classrooms,
and taking responsibility for
guiding and educating the
standard teachers.
3. The more effective teachers
should be paid two to three
times what the regular
teachers are paid in order to
attract really smart people--
people who could have been
doctors or physicists.
Schools need to start
evaluating teachers effectively
whether or not any teacher is
ever laid off.
Teachers are leaving
schools all the time, and it's
often the best teachers who
are pushed out or who choose
to leave. (Guillermo Gomez
and I both left Chula Vista
Elementary School District.) An
unhealthy teacher culture that
fears change and protects
mediocre and poor performers
causes many good teachers to
leave, including some who are
simply too disgusted to stay.
We can't fire weak teachers
because we don't have anyone
to replace them, but
professional observers should
evaluate all teachers, and poor
performers should be
supported and supervised by
good teachers.
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Amalia Cudeiro
Ed.D. USP
Harvard Graduate School of
Education
A senior executive with Focus On
Results, Amalia Cudeiro was most
recently one of five deputy
superintendents for the Boston
Public Schools, where her primary
responsibilities included
recruitment, selection, training,
professional development,
supervision, and evaluation of
principals, headmasters, directors,
and cluster leaders.
During her tenure in the Boston
Public Schools, Cudeiro was
instrumental in the development
and implementation of the school
district's Principal Evaluation and
Accountability Process.
Additionally, in collaboration with
the Center for Leadership
Development, she engaged in the
creation and implementation of a
professional development program
for current principals and a
principal preparation program to
hire and train new principal leaders.
Cudeiro served for many years as
a principal in California public
school systems, in the Santa
Monica and Baldwin Park school
districts. Later, after completing her
doctorate at Harvard University,
she was one of only eight selected
nationally to study in Harvard's
Urban Superintendents Program.
Born in Cuba and educated in
Spain through high school,
Cudeiro completed all of her
university work in the United
States and possesses the
strengths of being fully
bilingual and biliterate, with
special sensitivity and
experience in issues of valuing
diversity and bilingual
education.
Ed.D. USP
Harvard Graduate School of
Education
A senior executive with Focus On
Results, Amalia Cudeiro was most
recently one of five deputy
superintendents for the Boston
Public Schools, where her primary
responsibilities included
recruitment, selection, training,
professional development,
supervision, and evaluation of
principals, headmasters, directors,
and cluster leaders.
During her tenure in the Boston
Public Schools, Cudeiro was
instrumental in the development
and implementation of the school
district's Principal Evaluation and
Accountability Process.
Additionally, in collaboration with
the Center for Leadership
Development, she engaged in the
creation and implementation of a
professional development program
for current principals and a
principal preparation program to
hire and train new principal leaders.
Cudeiro served for many years as
a principal in California public
school systems, in the Santa
Monica and Baldwin Park school
districts. Later, after completing her
doctorate at Harvard University,
she was one of only eight selected
nationally to study in Harvard's
Urban Superintendents Program.
Born in Cuba and educated in
Spain through high school,
Cudeiro completed all of her
university work in the United
States and possesses the
strengths of being fully
bilingual and biliterate, with
special sensitivity and
experience in issues of valuing
diversity and bilingual
education.
When I first created this webpage, I called it "Experts in Education" and subtitled it
"Cudeiro clueless?" As you can see above, I added the word "cunning" to my subtitle
when I learned more about Cudeiro.
At first I had been simply confounded as to how this woman could describe former
Chula Vista Elementary School District Superintendent Libia Gil as having 'strong
relationships' with principals. When Gil was in power at CVESD, the district office
made a practice of ignoring schools.
District administrators were happy as long as everything was quiet; no news was
good news. If there was a problem, Libby Gil sent Richard Werlin out to make
problems worse, and then cover them up.
It turns out Cudeiro isn't clueless, but she does have some alarming conflicts of
interest. She is in business with Libby Gil.
"Cudeiro clueless?" As you can see above, I added the word "cunning" to my subtitle
when I learned more about Cudeiro.
At first I had been simply confounded as to how this woman could describe former
Chula Vista Elementary School District Superintendent Libia Gil as having 'strong
relationships' with principals. When Gil was in power at CVESD, the district office
made a practice of ignoring schools.
District administrators were happy as long as everything was quiet; no news was
good news. If there was a problem, Libby Gil sent Richard Werlin out to make
problems worse, and then cover them up.
It turns out Cudeiro isn't clueless, but she does have some alarming conflicts of
interest. She is in business with Libby Gil.
Original version of this page:
The World
Conspires to Make
Expertise
Unreliable
By Rick Hess
Education Week
November 23, 2011
Note: This week, I'm
giving RHSU readers a
look at my essay in
Richard Elmore's recent
Harvard Education Press
volume I Used to
Think...And Now I Think.
If you find this stuff at all
interesting, I'd definitely
encourage you to check
the book out. For days
one and two, see here
and here.
Say something smart
once and there are huge
rewards for spending a
career saying it, in
increasingly elaborate
forms. Academics who
own an idea get hired by
prestigious universities,
deliver keynotes, and get
all kinds of attendant
perks. Consultants who
own an idea become
must-haves for districts,
foundations, and
contractors. The result is
a familiar kabuki of
hyperspecialists airing
their prebaked views.
The world is composed of
niches. In each, a thinker
may be iconic so long as
she stays in her little
crevice. Thus, an expert
in pharmacology may
speak to a cheering
conference hall of
awe-struck attendees
only to walk across the
campus or the hotel and
quickly become just an
anonymous face in the
crowd. An expert on
school violence or
science instruction might
be feted as legendary by
those in her field but
sacrifice that respect and
deference should she
wander outside that
circle. The result
discourages individuals
from spending much time
wrestling with thorny
questions or complexities
that reach beyond their
core expertise. Hence,
enormously respected
thinkers will offer
prescriptions for
educational policy or
practice that are woefully
naïve in terms of political
dynamics, organizational
realities, institutional
pressure, incentives, or
practical constraints.
Why? Because many of
these experts have never
spent much time thinking
about how their expertise
intersects with all the
stuff in which they're not
expert.
Meanwhile, within niches, the
interest in weighing competing
arguments or determining how
one's expertise translates to
the larger world is massively
undervalued. Expertise
promotes deep knowledge,
which can too readily lead to
inflexibility and
self-assuredness (along with
the expectation that one's
biases and assumptions will be
afforded deference). There
are always exceptions, but
most thinkers become expert
by struggling to the top of their
niche on the back of their big
idea, and then do all they can
to extend the reach of that
idea and of the acolytes who
aid in that quest--incidentally,
or quite purposefully, stymieing
heterodox perspectives. In
fact, the very nature of
expertise is that it stifles
dissent and reifies the
orthodoxy of the moment.
Moreover, since
established figures
typically find themselves
addressing friendly
audiences and
gatherings where it is
deemed impolite to
contest their assumptions
and evidence too
ardently, it is frighteningly
easy for experts to settle
into a comfortable bubble
where they are
surrounded by
like-minded peers and
adoring disciples, their
word is gospel and they
are buffered from
anything more than
occasional interaction
with those who might
disagree.
Finally, our criteria for
expertise are, almost
inevitably, relational (e.g.
my colleague tells me
Trang is terrific) or
formulaic (e.g. Wylie was
executive director of X for
a number of years,
launched Y program, or
has published eleven
articles on this). Why?
Our ability to form
independent judgments
of the hundreds or
thousands of individuals
most directly engaged in
our field of endeavor,
much less the thousands
more peripherally
engaged, is limited by
our own inexpert grasp of
the world. Only the
arrogant or the deluded
imagine they perfectly
understand the strengths
and skills of hundreds of
friends, acquaintances,
and strangers. Thus, we
turn to proxies that are
themselves deeply
imperfect--but that can
lead to our investing
great authority in this or
that expert for a season.
Done with sufficient
skepticism and care, this
manner of finding experts
is natural and normal. But
there's a decided
temptation to lodge
excessive influence in our
choice of the moment. I
can't tell you how many
times I've been talking with
a superintendent who has
become a guru for a
foundation and found
myself wondering why this
unremarkable man was
deemed any more
deserving of that status
than any of a dozen other
superintendents. The
difference, in many cases,
is nothing more than a
personal relationship,
experience in a few big
districts, or the fact that a
superintendent was an
early adopter of a
reform--all of which,
perhaps bizarrely, results
in an individual being
invested with presumed
expertise across a broad
range of issues.
So why does any of this
matter? Does it make any
practical difference when
it comes to schools or
schooling? I think it does.
In education, for
instance, despite
decades of research,
experts have no
systematic way to tell who
will be a good teacher or
how to design practices
that lead to predictable
improvement at scale.
This state of affairs
means at least four
things.
First, we ought to be
hesitant in casually
suggesting that we can
name, based on our
experience, a list of the
nation's best school
districts, superintendents,
or reading programs.
Short of some protocol
that helps us identify
excellence in a
transparent and
consistent fashion (for
better or worse), we ought
to be much humbler about
such exercises. They
frequently amount to
nothing more than an
echo chamber, with
participants passing on
names that they
themselves have received
second- or third-hand.
Second, we should be
wary of prescriptive
advice, especially when
it's based on the
assumption that expertise
easily and immutably
travels across contexts.
In fact, given its
narrowness, expertise
can exert a gravitational
pull that distorts how one
thinks about the larger
world. Expertise can
come at the cost of
perspective when an
expert starts
contemplating efforts to
change policy,
organizations, or human
behavior. After all, expert
advice tends to reflect
what experts know, which
may not reflect what is
most useful for solving
the larger problem in the
real world. For instance,
grand assertions about
merit pay, school choice,
differentiated instruction,
or class size reduction
that overlook the
practical impact of
contracts, policies,
existing incentives, and
embedded routines can
yield results quite
different from those the
experts are touting.
Third--all that
said--expertise has a
terrifically useful place,
as long as we
understand what the
experts actually know,
which is how to do
specific, concrete tasks
right. I'm always eager to
turn to an expert when
the question is how to
build a bridge, estimate
how many people will visit
Vegas next month,
design an assessment,
erect a new school, or
conduct a complicated
statistical analysis. I'm
less inclined to do so
when the questions are
bigger, messier, and
more dependent on
judgment and values.
Finally, we need to
recognize that individual
experts ought not be
invested with too much
prescience, but the right
mix of experts can help
identify tensions,
incentives, and the
contours of possible
solutions. If one
assembles the right mix
of experts, their
competing views can
prove enormously helpful
in crafting smart policies.
The key, however, is not
to empower any one
expert to play guru but to
allow competing expertise
to illuminate and inform
complex decisions.
One last thought. For
what it's worth, my
approach nowadays is
not to casually reject
educational expertise but
to regard its acclaimed
ministers with the same
attentive skepticism I
reserve for financial
advisers and real estate
agents. They know stuff
that's useful, but that
doesn't entitle them to
blind deference or even
trusting obeisance. At
least not in my book.
Conspires to Make
Expertise
Unreliable
By Rick Hess
Education Week
November 23, 2011
Note: This week, I'm
giving RHSU readers a
look at my essay in
Richard Elmore's recent
Harvard Education Press
volume I Used to
Think...And Now I Think.
If you find this stuff at all
interesting, I'd definitely
encourage you to check
the book out. For days
one and two, see here
and here.
Say something smart
once and there are huge
rewards for spending a
career saying it, in
increasingly elaborate
forms. Academics who
own an idea get hired by
prestigious universities,
deliver keynotes, and get
all kinds of attendant
perks. Consultants who
own an idea become
must-haves for districts,
foundations, and
contractors. The result is
a familiar kabuki of
hyperspecialists airing
their prebaked views.
The world is composed of
niches. In each, a thinker
may be iconic so long as
she stays in her little
crevice. Thus, an expert
in pharmacology may
speak to a cheering
conference hall of
awe-struck attendees
only to walk across the
campus or the hotel and
quickly become just an
anonymous face in the
crowd. An expert on
school violence or
science instruction might
be feted as legendary by
those in her field but
sacrifice that respect and
deference should she
wander outside that
circle. The result
discourages individuals
from spending much time
wrestling with thorny
questions or complexities
that reach beyond their
core expertise. Hence,
enormously respected
thinkers will offer
prescriptions for
educational policy or
practice that are woefully
naïve in terms of political
dynamics, organizational
realities, institutional
pressure, incentives, or
practical constraints.
Why? Because many of
these experts have never
spent much time thinking
about how their expertise
intersects with all the
stuff in which they're not
expert.
Meanwhile, within niches, the
interest in weighing competing
arguments or determining how
one's expertise translates to
the larger world is massively
undervalued. Expertise
promotes deep knowledge,
which can too readily lead to
inflexibility and
self-assuredness (along with
the expectation that one's
biases and assumptions will be
afforded deference). There
are always exceptions, but
most thinkers become expert
by struggling to the top of their
niche on the back of their big
idea, and then do all they can
to extend the reach of that
idea and of the acolytes who
aid in that quest--incidentally,
or quite purposefully, stymieing
heterodox perspectives. In
fact, the very nature of
expertise is that it stifles
dissent and reifies the
orthodoxy of the moment.
Moreover, since
established figures
typically find themselves
addressing friendly
audiences and
gatherings where it is
deemed impolite to
contest their assumptions
and evidence too
ardently, it is frighteningly
easy for experts to settle
into a comfortable bubble
where they are
surrounded by
like-minded peers and
adoring disciples, their
word is gospel and they
are buffered from
anything more than
occasional interaction
with those who might
disagree.
Finally, our criteria for
expertise are, almost
inevitably, relational (e.g.
my colleague tells me
Trang is terrific) or
formulaic (e.g. Wylie was
executive director of X for
a number of years,
launched Y program, or
has published eleven
articles on this). Why?
Our ability to form
independent judgments
of the hundreds or
thousands of individuals
most directly engaged in
our field of endeavor,
much less the thousands
more peripherally
engaged, is limited by
our own inexpert grasp of
the world. Only the
arrogant or the deluded
imagine they perfectly
understand the strengths
and skills of hundreds of
friends, acquaintances,
and strangers. Thus, we
turn to proxies that are
themselves deeply
imperfect--but that can
lead to our investing
great authority in this or
that expert for a season.
Done with sufficient
skepticism and care, this
manner of finding experts
is natural and normal. But
there's a decided
temptation to lodge
excessive influence in our
choice of the moment. I
can't tell you how many
times I've been talking with
a superintendent who has
become a guru for a
foundation and found
myself wondering why this
unremarkable man was
deemed any more
deserving of that status
than any of a dozen other
superintendents. The
difference, in many cases,
is nothing more than a
personal relationship,
experience in a few big
districts, or the fact that a
superintendent was an
early adopter of a
reform--all of which,
perhaps bizarrely, results
in an individual being
invested with presumed
expertise across a broad
range of issues.
So why does any of this
matter? Does it make any
practical difference when
it comes to schools or
schooling? I think it does.
In education, for
instance, despite
decades of research,
experts have no
systematic way to tell who
will be a good teacher or
how to design practices
that lead to predictable
improvement at scale.
This state of affairs
means at least four
things.
First, we ought to be
hesitant in casually
suggesting that we can
name, based on our
experience, a list of the
nation's best school
districts, superintendents,
or reading programs.
Short of some protocol
that helps us identify
excellence in a
transparent and
consistent fashion (for
better or worse), we ought
to be much humbler about
such exercises. They
frequently amount to
nothing more than an
echo chamber, with
participants passing on
names that they
themselves have received
second- or third-hand.
Second, we should be
wary of prescriptive
advice, especially when
it's based on the
assumption that expertise
easily and immutably
travels across contexts.
In fact, given its
narrowness, expertise
can exert a gravitational
pull that distorts how one
thinks about the larger
world. Expertise can
come at the cost of
perspective when an
expert starts
contemplating efforts to
change policy,
organizations, or human
behavior. After all, expert
advice tends to reflect
what experts know, which
may not reflect what is
most useful for solving
the larger problem in the
real world. For instance,
grand assertions about
merit pay, school choice,
differentiated instruction,
or class size reduction
that overlook the
practical impact of
contracts, policies,
existing incentives, and
embedded routines can
yield results quite
different from those the
experts are touting.
Third--all that
said--expertise has a
terrifically useful place,
as long as we
understand what the
experts actually know,
which is how to do
specific, concrete tasks
right. I'm always eager to
turn to an expert when
the question is how to
build a bridge, estimate
how many people will visit
Vegas next month,
design an assessment,
erect a new school, or
conduct a complicated
statistical analysis. I'm
less inclined to do so
when the questions are
bigger, messier, and
more dependent on
judgment and values.
Finally, we need to
recognize that individual
experts ought not be
invested with too much
prescience, but the right
mix of experts can help
identify tensions,
incentives, and the
contours of possible
solutions. If one
assembles the right mix
of experts, their
competing views can
prove enormously helpful
in crafting smart policies.
The key, however, is not
to empower any one
expert to play guru but to
allow competing expertise
to illuminate and inform
complex decisions.
One last thought. For
what it's worth, my
approach nowadays is
not to casually reject
educational expertise but
to regard its acclaimed
ministers with the same
attentive skepticism I
reserve for financial
advisers and real estate
agents. They know stuff
that's useful, but that
doesn't entitle them to
blind deference or even
trusting obeisance. At
least not in my book.
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |