FISH STINKS FROM THE HEAD

“How’s your school? Any good?” I’m asked this question often by teachers and parents searching for the “good” schools among the hundreds in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

And they all know that even schools that share the same neighborhood and population have huge differences in achievement as well as in amenities and faculty.

This is so because every school is the personal fiefdom of its principal. And principals, sadly, are very often the ultimate depiction of the “Peter Principle”; possibly once-decent classroom teachers who, for better pay, move to administrative jobs in which they are totally incompetent. Others are terrible teachers (usually male) who were originally moved out and up to fill assistant principal jobs that are responsible for discipline.

Some attempt to govern by hiding in their office and communicating by memo, showing face only at weekly staff meetings. Others stride the campus like cartoon generals barking orders and criticizing classroom bulletin boards for their lack of the proper California Standards references.

Armed with an Administrative Credential and, for some, even a Doctor of Education (often from one of the intellectually limited teacher training institutions), many are woefully unprepared for the job of CEO of what is, in actuality, a large multilevel company with as many as one hundred employees and more than a thousand students with wildly disparate needs and abilities.

A capable principal can make a dramatic difference -- one inner city school in Los Angeles had a a great principal. Fannie Humphrey was involved in all aspects of the school. I knew I’d have a productive teaching day when I saw her on the playground in the morning, welcoming the students as they came in the gate -- most by name -- and by her demeanor, setting standards of behavior. Like a great coach, she instilled the students with pride in the specialness of their school -- “Your school is named for Martin Luther King! -- and in their ability to make their school, their parents, and themselves proud and successful to the best of their abilities.

Despite the reality that many of the children live in homeless shelters, battered women’s shelters, with grandmothers, or are foster children, during her long tenure there were very few discipline problems. A large, African-American woman, her regal presence was enough to maintain her high standards. And the students had all the frills: computers, Physical Education instructors, a topnotch library with a trained librarian, and field trips that took fifth graders who had never been off their block to the Grand Canyon, and the whole school (1100 students) to the County Fair.

“Do you rob banks?” I asked her. “My dear,” she replied, “These are poor children. There is money to be had if you know how to find it.” And find it she did. A public relations whiz, she inspired editorials in the Los Angeles Times, shamed local businesses into personal and monetary involvement with the school, and invited media and colleagues to view a successful inner city elementary school. Many criticized her for what they felt was self aggrandizement -- but the children reaped the benefits.

And good principals attract, hire, and keep good teachers. Many young, bright UCLA and USC graduates -- African-American, Hispanic, and White, men and women -- signed on and became her enthusiastic acolytes. As part of The Ten Schools Project, moneys were available to raise the proficiency of the lowest performing schools in the city. Teachers returned to school in August and were paid for a month of faculty development. They were required to dress professionally -- unlike most other school where the teachers dress in old jeans, shorts, sandals, and wrinkled t-shirts. They were rewarded with the opportunity to teach in an exciting environment, as well as “perks” of catered breakfasts, delightful holiday parties, and gifts of appreciation.

There are those that claim that “throwing money“ at problem schools is not the answer. Of course these are the very people who raise vast amounts of money for the private schools their children attend. The moneys appeared to be well spent and the all important scores were the proof. These children were doing as well as many in suburban areas.