|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8. Graduation
Requirements—We put graduation requirements in place to make
the diploma 9.
Open Enrollment—The board did not have to turn its parents
free but it did. We said to parents, if you can choose a better school, even
if it's out of our district, then go for it. We will provide There is a distinction between a system with incentives for producing change within schools and a system that from the outside tries to make schools change and improve. Folks need an exit option or you have me (as a board member) over a barrel. I need leverage otherwise site-based decision-making remains largely symbolic. What happens is the central office essentially says, we 'empower' you do exactly what we prescribe. But five votes, and you must do something. No real power rests with the people who actually do the work, teachers who teach or the janitors who keep the schools open. It is a system that is over administered, over centralized, and over standardized. We've got to turn this pyramid upside down. The central office has to work for schools, and schools have to buy central office service. When the school's identity, its survival, its reputation matter, we have to put the power to control their fate—to make fundamental decisions, control resources, and select people—with the people on-site. They don't have to do this, but once schools voluntarily take on site management responsibilities, then we can support them. And there's some new school governance structures now being tried. For example, we now have 7 co-op schools run exclusively by teachers which I encourage. These are powerful teachers, really involved. You don't want to mess with them. Schools begin to look at everything. They are saying we'd better create something that's hot. Otherwise we'll lose count. My life is so much easier—I don't have to intervene in a problem I can't solve. When I get a complaint, I just say, have your school council put it in writing to me. Portland (Most of the various discussions in Portland dwelt on the politics of change. When making change, it is the politics that creates the challenge. But, John said, change is easier in Milwaukee than in Oregon because choice is not on the horizon in Oregon. Even with choice, it still took the Milwaukee board on average 18 months to put each reform in place. For each reform it had to develop a constituency.) The hardest issue was site-based hiring which they called a "union buster." With site based budgeting, the school must set its own staffing levels. Hiring becomes a local management issue for the school especially with multi-year budgeting because the school has to decide among more staff, capital improvements, and so forth. If a school is going to turn itself around, it must also be able to get rid of bad teachers. It is not the job of the principal to be nice. If that is all he is, then it is the responsibility of the Superintendent to fire him regardless of what others might say. The way to shut down a failing school is to give vouchers and let the kids leave. This
kind of leverage let us offer each school a choice. Do you want to run
yourself, improve your program, control your resources, hire and fire your own
staff and put forward your own principal candidate so you can attract and hang on to your families through to
graduation, or do you want us to administer your school from the central office? It means all of the
site-managed schools are essentially Districts
really only have three functions, superintendent oversight of school
principals, human relations for bargaining, and finance (payroll, insurance,
the superintendent/board oversight function, |
