Becoming a Great High School: Six Strategies and One Attitude that Make a Difference
By Tim R. Westerberg
ASCD (2009)

Reviewed by Mary Tedrow, NBCT
High School English/journalism (N. Va.)

Becoming a Great High School: Six Strategies and One Attitude that Make a Difference is full of familiar information since, as a classroom teacher, I have been on the receiving end of many of the innovations cited by Tim Westerberg as means to move a high school from “good to great.”
 
Westerberg’s thin text (i.e., “a quick read for busy administrators”) outlines methods to change the attitude of the professionals in the building to a we-can-do-it mindset as the professional team moves schools from okay to wowser. Westerberg leans heavily on the business management text Good to Great that was making the rounds in my system in 2000. Westerberg’s text is essentially a roadmap for where to drive the building-level bus of reform, in Jim Collins' Good to Great terminology.

Citing Robert Marzano as the wellspring of his ideas, Westerberg employs another education buzz-term, the writing standards mnemonic 6+1, to outline what a school can and should do to move a high school to greatness: Follow the six strategies and couple them with a can-do attitude, the plus-one aspect of the formula.

Many of Marzano’s points are incorporated here:  Too many standards are taught. Focus on the Power Standards. Administer frequent common formative assessments to assess student learning.  Encourage collaborative work among the professionals to create standards of teaching and learning.  Define rigorous teaching to encourage a culture of success and foster the mood that “what we do here is important” to the student body at large.

What about the elephant?

There is little to argue with in this text as it sets clear guidelines for professional improvement in a building where the success of each child is paramount — also my classroom goal. I agree we need alignment from top to bottom.

The book outlines the role of administrators in this framework. Rather than just read it, I can imagine an administrator referring to it from time to time to check in on where and how the strategizing is going.

I’ve no beef with the content.

I do have a beef with the elephant in the room.

Westerberg gives only a nod to the need for the professionalization of teachers in his afterward, where he references the work of the Center for Teaching Quality and its 2008 TeacherSolutions report about the teachers’ role in improving the nation’s schools (Measuring what Matters: The effects of National Board Certification on advancing 21st Century teaching and learning) on page 112 of 114 pages.  He acknowledges that teacher leadership is the next step in reform.

It should be the first.

The outline for effective teaching and learning ignores two essentials that would make such a plan truly great: empowerment of both students and teachers through ownership of goal setting and self-evaluation and assessment, along with the time to do so.

A bulleted list on pages 57-58 outlines eight ways to find time for teachers to do the essential work of collaboration.  Many items on the list have been promised to those of us who yearn for collaboration with peers (but never considered in my working experience is bullet #1, a huge insult to professionalism: eliminate duty periods). Only one suggestion has been acted upon in my workplace: provide substitutes so teachers can work together.

This has happened twice in the past year.

Meanwhile, directives based on Marzano have added a burden to already burdened teachers who must delay their “own work,” in the form of lesson planning and assessment, to do the work of the building.  This creates a resentment that places any improvement program at risk. 

Unwillingness to comply with change is often dealt with in high school reform books in a chapter titled “Dealing with Difficult Teachers.” (Though, thankfully, Westerberg has not included that chapter.) Yet, as each new directive comes from above, teachers are tasked with building the plane while flying it, and recently this has been occurring in shorter and shorter time frames.
 
It is exhausting.

Veterans get good at fending off the change-du-jour. Teachers learn to shrug, shut the door, or risk getting worked to death over every new initiative.

Great schools will be a fact of life when great working conditions are standard and teachers are provided with time and resources to enact deep and lasting reform. Piling more work on already over-worked teachers continues to thwart the best intentions.
  
Westerberg’s plus-one attitude adjustment at the building level comes from celebrating success. But whose success is being celebrated?  No matter how noble, celebrating your goals is not the same as setting and reaching my own. Neither is it the same as the sense of pride and self-satisfaction when the self-identified work achieves measurable change.

Thus does corporate partying make cynics of us all.

Both Marzano and Westerberg would do much for the education field if they first wrote the book on acknowledging and providing space and time for teacher knowledge and growth, rather than on how to manage change in a non-conducive environment.
 
That would be revolutionary.

TLN blogger Renee Moore (TeachMoore) writes of miguided education funding priorities and their impact on those citizens who most need access to a quality educational experience:

As our state and federal governments put less funding into education generally, they insist that our nation must rise again to the top of global educational attainment. The Secretary of Education proclaims we must learn to do more with less. I know I'm not alone in finding that statement deeply disingenuous, if not downright insulting to those of us who have never been given proper or equal resources with which to educate the children for whom we are responsible. 

When children at one elementary school in town can have a library with books and computers, while those across town have to settle for some donated older books on a cart — when one high school has a fully functioning science laboratory where students can engage in hands-on learning — while at the other, teachers have to buy a single lab kit out of their own pockets to show their classes an experiment — as long as these and many other inequities are allowed to continue unchallenged, we are lying to those children in those poorer conditions when we tell them we value them or their education.

Read her complete post at teacherleaders.typepad.com

The Death and Life of the Great American School System
by Diane Ravitch

(Basic Books, 2010)

Reviewed by Sarah Schumacher
Secondary Literacy & Social Studies (WA)

TLN New Millennium Initiative

Why would a powerful, successful advocate for what amounted to a revolution in our education system completely change her mind about the initiatives she once supported? And what happens when she does? What do we do next? Those were the questions on my mind as I picked up Diane Ravitch’s newest book The Death and Life of the Great American School System. I had heard of Diane Ravitch and her ideas many times in my career and had heard rumblings about her so-called ‘mea culpa’, and so was excited to find out what her motivations were, what she had seen that so completely changed her mind.

There are no sacred cows in this book; Ravitch pulls no punches. She systematically goes after many of the initiatives and policies that have been held up in the last years as cure-alls for the ills of our education system: testing, tenure, charter schools, Teach for America, vouchers. . .the list goes on. As she says late in the book, “American education has a long history of infatuation with fads and ill-considered ideas.” As educators, we see so many initiatives rolling through that are promised to be panaceas that we often know will lead to nothing. So it’s refreshing to hear someone speaking so candidly and with so much depth. On the other hand, as you read the book you’re left wondering what else is there? If these things aren’t “magic feathers,” then what should we be doing instead? We definitely learn the ‘why’ of her transformation, but not so much the ‘what next?’

Her first chapter, “What I Learned About School Reform,” outlines Ravitch’s career as an educational researcher and writer and subsequent ascension to the position of assistant secretary of education in the George H.W. Bush administration. One thing I respected immediately about her arguments is that she doesn’t let herself off the hook for the role she played. She admits that, “I began ‘seeing like a state,’ looking at schools and teachers and students from an altitude of 20,000 feet and seeing them as objects to be moved around by big ideas and great plans.” The chapter then chronicles her change of heart as she realizes the initiatives proliferating education are not getting the results they should. She ends by beginning her argument that in the era of NCLB education was beginning to be viewed as an institution that could, and should, be run as if it were a private, for-profit enterprise. However, she emphasizes that she does not have clear alternatives of her own. More about that later.

The second chapter, “Hijacked! How the Standards Movement Turned Into the Testing Movement,” continues to set the context for NCLB. It is in this chapter that you learn three things about Diane Ravitch. First, she strongly dislikes NCLB and all its progeny: testing, so-called accountability, choice, etc.. Second, she appreciated the 1983 report A Nation at Risk and the prescription it gave the nation’s education system. Third, and most of all, she likes strong standards and curriculum, believing that they lead to more well-rounded, deeper thinking students. Take note, because that’s about the only thing she appears to like in the entirety of the book.

The book then becomes a whirlwind of detail in a House-That-Jack-Built layered style of argumentation. In other words: She really makes her case. The third, fourth and fifth chapters tell the stories of three different school districts and how fundamental changes to their organizations and policies in the mode of NCLB-era ideas led to uncertain outcomes. Those uncertain outcomes are a theme throughout the rest of the book. It seems that for every initiative there are a thousand studies, all of them reaching a different conclusion.

The next three chapters form the crux of her argument: “NCLB: Measure and Punish”, “Choice: The Story of an Idea”, and “The Trouble with Accountability.” In these chapters she outlines, detail by detail (by detail) the case against No Child Left Behind and its policies. In “What Would Mrs. Ratliff Do?”, she talks about the growing movement to link teacher evaluations to test scores and wonders if her own favorite teacher, Mrs. Ratliff, would be considered a great teacher today, she of the red marking pen and nineteenth-century poetry. Sadly, she probably wouldn’t.

Finally, the next to last chapter, “The Billionaire Boys’ Club” is aimed directly at those large foundations and endowments that, Ravitch argues, are driving education reform with their own agendas instead of seeking out innovators already in the field. She talks at length about the Gates Foundation and its small schools agenda and how the Broad Foundation is supporting the movement to turn school administration into a business. This seems to be the core of her argument, that the more the powers that be have treated education as a business, the more detrimental it has been to our nation’s students. She makes this argument thoroughly and leaves no question marks about any of the major factors impacting education today.

Given that, what was unexpected for me was that there are many questions left unanswered at the end of the book. I finally reached the chapter I’d been waiting for, “Lessons Learned,” and found it pretty unsatisfying. Throughout this shortest of chapters, she uses the refrain “Our schools will not improve if…” to share what she thinks should be the priorities of our education system. She brings up national standards and common curriculum and talks about what the goals of testing and teacher evaluation should be, but gives very few specifics.

I guess I’d liken it to hearing a firebrand speaker and getting passionately excited about the cause only to be given a tin sword with which to go start the revolution. We need much more than lofty generalities to fix what is broken about our system. In all, though, I found this book incredibly well-argued, thought-provoking and interesting and would recommend it to anyone who wants to know the other side of the story of education in the last decade.

Sarah Schumacher is a secondary literacy coach and social studies coordinator in the Edmonds, Washington School District. She’s a member of the New Millennium Initiative teacher team exploring teaching policy issues in her state.

Why School? Reclaiming Education for All of Us
by Mike Rose
(The New Press, 2009)

Reviewed by Kenneth Bernstein
High School Government & Social Studies (MD)


Teacher Leaders Network

How we think about and voice the purpose of school matters. It affects what we put in or take out of the curriculum and how we teach that curriculum. It affects the way we think about students — all students — about intelligence, achievement, human development, teaching and learning, opportunity and obligation. And all of this affects the way we think about each other and who we are as a nation.

Perhaps it may seem odd to begin the review of a book with its final words. Yet is also appropriate, because to answer the question Mike Rose poses in his title, it is necessary to consider the destination towards which we head. It is especially appropriate for this book, because this final observation explains succinctly the concerns Rose attempts to address in Why School?:

• what is in the curriculum and why
• how we teach
• how we frame what intelligence is, what we value, in school and society
• issues of opportunity for all, including appropriate remediation
• issue of common obligation that should be part of our culture as a democratic society.

Rose is in many ways uniquely qualified to take on this task. He teaches in the Graduate School of Education at UCLA. He has taught at many levels. His personal background is from working-class roots and he has maintained a sense of respect of the requirements — including intellectual — of what too many dismiss as manual labor. He is very committed to the democratic ideal that allows people to rise above their origins as he was able to do. He is a superb writer and an even better story-teller, not afraid to use stories to teach, to help us understand.

Before going on, let me provide some specifics. Why School? Reclaiming Education for All of Us is published by The New Press, which is based in New York City, and which was established two decades ago as a not-for-profit alternative to large publishing houses. The publishing house

operates in the public interest rather than for private gain, and is committed to publishing, in innovative ways, works of educational, cultural, and community value that are often deemed insufficiently profitable.

I quote those words from the page containing the copyright information for several reasons. First, this book definitely meets the test of educational and community value, as I hope this review will demonstrate. Next, the mission of the publisher is very much in conformity with both the purpose of this book and the focus of Mike Rose’s life work, which is to have us committed to a broad sense of common purpose. And finally, I truly think this book may well disprove the notion about being "insufficiently profitable."

On that same page Rose informs us that the essays in the book are reworked from a number of previously published pieces on which he holds the copyright. Had one not read those words, or the words in the introduction where he explains the purpose of the book, one might well think this was a book written at one time with one purpose. In that sense it is consistent with much of the work of Rose in his writing and his teaching.

I am more than tempted to offer extensive quotations because Rose is so fluid and insightful a writer. I will offer some to illustrate key points.

Rose begins by telling us a story about Anthony, a young man enrolled in a basic skills program at a community college where Rose was then teaching. He recounts an episode of someone who greets Anthony, a brain-damaged man in his 30s who could barely read and write but who was self-educated. It turned out the man was a dean, but had also once been Anthony’s parole officer. Anthony may not be the kind of person about whom we think when we discuss educational policy, but even twenty years after that encounter Rose helps us understand why it should. Anthony is in the program to better be able to guide his daughter, to continue his self-education, “To create a new life for himself, nurture this emerging sense of who he can be” (p. 4). Rose tells us that the chapters in the book deal with the topics that inform Anthony’s story. Then on that same page we encounter a remarkable paragraph that I feel I must quote it its entirety:
 It matters a great deal how we collectively talk about education, for that discussion both reflects and, in turn, affects policy decisions about what gets taught and tested, about funding, about what we expect schooling to contribute to our lives. It matters, as well, how we think about intelligence, how narrowly or broadly we define it. Our beliefs about intelligence affect everything from the way we organize school and work to how we treat each other. And it surely matters how we think about opportunity - that phrase is a core part of our national story. But opportunity is determined by public attitudes and public policy. Yes, in a sense and at times, we make our own opportunity; that self-reliance is another part of our national story. But from large-scale initiatives and programs (the G. I. Bill or Head Start, for example) to the funding for a coach in a local park, opportunity is created through some form of specific and deliberate action.
Mike Rose was kind enough to talk with me about the book. He decided to write it in 2007 because he was very worried about the nation's future educational policies. It was a time when there was serious discussion on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which in its current incarnation was commonly called No Child Left Behind (after the Bush proposal of that title). He felt that too many of those whose voices were being heard were oblivious to a number of things, many of which had been a consistent part of his own 40 years of teaching. The perspective of the student was missing. The reality of the impact of poverty upon the lives of students was rarely seen. The different reality of rural schools was totally ignored. There was also a shocking devaluation of the learning and skill required for many working class jobs, and a concomitant restricting of the curriculum for the children from working class and immigrant families in order to raise their test scores. Having written on a number of these issues in the past, Rose felt he could start with his previous pieces and rework them as part of a coherent attempt to address some of the issues he felt were either being ignored or not fully and honestly perceived.

Thus while Rose greatly values the opportunity education has provided — and views his own life as an example thereof — he reminds us in his introduction that
education alone is not enough to trump some social barriers like racist hiring practices or inequality in pa based on gender. Furthermore, for disadvantaged populations - particularly the most impoverished - education must be one of a number of programs that would include health care, housing family assistance and so on (p. 13).
He revisits this idea in the chapter titled “No Child Left Behind and the Spirit of Democratic Education” where he reminds us that
The rhetoric of “no excuses” - though it has a legitimate point to make - can deflect our attention from the plain, brutal reality of so many young people’s lives (pp. 30-31).
In “Politics and Knowledge” and “Reflections on Intelligence in Workplace and the School,”, his fifth and sixth (of thirteen) chapters (and there is a conclusion), Rose offers some of his most valuable insights, including his respect for both the capabilities of people of working class background and for the requirements and skill of the work they do. Having come from a working class background, and having studied the thought required to do blue-collar and service work, Rose makes us focus on how we demean and diminish categories of work and the people who fill them, disconnect our schooling from the vocational paths that many of our young people will follow, and perpetuate an unfortunate historical pattern that belittles those not rooted in the academy and the formal professions. As Rose points out, this ignores a crucial part of our past. He reminds us that “Shakespeare was as popular on the frontier as in the city” (p. 68) and “My Uncle Frank, a railroad machinist, would quote Longfellow in his letters’ (p. 69). He writes that
As an ideal, democracy assumes the capacity of the common person to learn, to think independently, to decide thoughtfully (p. 85).
Further, there is a real danger in an attitude that belittles common work as mindless, that the instruction we develop will fail to develop instructional connections among the different kinds of skills and knowledge. And worse:
If we think that whole categories of people - identified by class, by occupation - are not that bright, then we reinforce social separation and cripple our ability to talk across our current cultural divides (p. 86).
There is so much more of value in this book. Rose argues that post-secondary institutions should not be so harsh on the need to provide remedial courses lest we close yet another door of opportunity to those who start with less and whose schooling is insufficient to compensate for that. He writes forcefully that our discussions focused on achievement do not include “curiosity, reflectiveness, uncertainty, or a willingness to take a chance, to blunder” and we rarely hear about “intellect, aesthetics, joy, courage, creativity, civility, understanding . . . think of how rarely we hear of commitment to public education as the center of a free society.” (both quotes from p. 27)

You have already read the final paragraph of this magnificent book, a relatively slender volume (169 pages without the acknowledgements and footnotes), but one that contains much of value. I would hope  all who are now engaged or hoping to become engaged in the making of educational policy would take the time to read and ponder what Rose has to offer. As Rose writes in his concluding chapter, there are a series of questions we must urgently explore:
how to educate a vast population, how to bring schooling to all, what to teach and how to teach it, who will do it, what the work will mean to them — what we can help it mean to them . . .because we haven’t satisfactorily answered them (p. 164).
Rose has a special concern about our troubled history educating children of the working class, a history I would argue is being extended by some of the effects of No Child Left Behind and may well be exacerbated by some of the policies being promulgated by the current administration.

Perhaps you will decide that you disagree with Mike Rose on some of the issues, but if you read this book you will, I can assure you, find yourself considering some of those questions we have yet to satisfactorily answer in new ways. That broadening of our thinking about educational questions is by itself a strong justification for reading the book.

So let me be blunt. Read the book. Urge others to read it as well. I plan to pass on the link for this review to many I know involved with educational policy, from my local school board and superintendent to Members of the House Committee on Education and Labor. That may not remove the volume from the category of “insufficiently profitable” that The New Press uses as part of its justification. I think that would not bother Mike Rose. The book clearly meets the primary test of the publisher, that is a work “of educational, cultural, and community value.” If more people will take the time to consider the issues Mike Rose addresses, I know he will be more than grateful.

In short, read this book. You will not be sorry.

Kenneth J. Bernstein is a National Board-certified teacher of social
studies at Eleanor Roosevelt High School Eleanor Roosevelt High School
in Greenbelt, Md., and a member of the Teacher Leaders Network. He is
nationally known as a blogger on education and other issues under his
online name of teacherken. Bernstein is also a 2010 recipient of The Washington Post’s Agnes Meyer Outstanding Teacher Award.

In a recent blog post at On the Shoulders of Giants, TLN member Ariel Sacks reflected on a new program planned by the Harvard Graduate School of Education, aimed at producing 21st century education leaders prepared with the business skills and the understanding of teaching and learning necessary to successfully lead schools.

Ariel cross-posted her blog entry in our TLN Forum discussion group. It sparked a LOT of conversation, some of which we share here. To get the most out of this dialog, read Ariel’s blog post first: Can Teachers Be ‘Senior Education Leaders’?

In her conclusion, Ariel writes:

…Coming from the opposite angle, could a classroom teacher--or group of classroom teachers--become a major force in education reform? I think yes…

I'd love to see a group of teachers enter Harvard's doctoral program and graduate having created and prepared themselves to take on hybrid roles--splitting their time between actual classroom teaching and working closely with senior "educational leaders" to help transform education.

If Harvard won't, can we create that program?

Anne replied:

That's an excellent suggestion, Ariel. I do some curriculum writing for middle schoolers. No matter how carefully and thoroughly I think it through, until I get in the classroom and teach it I don't know just how many changes I need to make! Nothing takes the place of the classroom reality check.

I especially like the idea of education reformers living and teaching the changes they recommend. Either that, or get out of the education reform business and let teacher leaders be in position drive the necessary changes. Actually, I like the last idea better, anyway!

Bob wrote:

Our educational system is yet to be widely structured in a way to tap into the leadership of classroom teachers or financially compensate classroom teacher leaders who remain in the classroom. I am unsure as to whether we are going to win over politicians and central office administrators in sufficient numbers unless some of us move into those positions while staying grounded to the experiences of the classroom.

I have a principal certification and am not tempted to use it right now because I love teaching. Financially it is a stupid move because I spent $15,000 for a second masters that did not increase my salary. I am not jumping in because when I went up to the front office and was a principal for short periods of time during my internship, I thought I was doing work that was far less rewarding than teaching. Part of the reason is that internships usually touch on discipline and procedures much more than instructional leadership.

I find far fewer administrators passionate about their job than teachers. Once exception is a principal I met by the pool at a San Diego principals' conference last year. He gave a passionate endorsement for becoming a principal. I remember his words clearly: "If you are a good teacher, ok that's something, but what does it amount to in the big picture? …But if you are the principal, you can really do anything. You can change a whole school. You want to teach a class, no problem. You’re the principal.”

Some experienced teachers need to become the prominent politicians, superintendents and principals in a way that they are still grounded to the classroom. Those that try will likely be criticized because it is not a common practice right now. I am looking forward to stepping into my classroom tomorrow morning. That is where it is at for me at this moment. So I do not know if we need to draw straws and have those that lose pursue the prominent positions, but we need more teacher perspective in those positions.

Ariel replied:

I keep thinking that principals are not really the education leaders that Harvard is thinking of--or many people think of when we say policy makers. I see principals as much closer to teachers because they are in schools every day and in contact with students every day. Superintendents probably do count as policy makers, but there are lots of other players in the game. Foundation people, leaders of organizations like TFA and New Leaders for New Schools, etc, and also politicians like Arne Duncan and Joel Klein and everyone who works for them. It would be very interesting to see how many have teaching experience and if they do--would they be interested in teaching in a public school classroom once a week, for example.

Chances are it would have to happen the other way, where teachers lead the way by moving into hybrid roles.

Marsha, who teaches in a suburban district in the mid-West, wrote:

I'm with Ariel on this viewpoint. I don't believe principals are the policymakers or are even asked for their input very much.

Parents have a much larger voice in our policymaking and the political process of electing the school board keeps those people in line with those that elected them. The supers do go out and hire layers of insulation...and those people seem to have never taught or it has been an eternity since they were in the classroom.

I think prinicipals are much closer to managers. They guide the ship, they implement policy and they interpret policy that has been given to them. Very little of what they do is inspired by what their building needs.

Marti wrote:

I think many of us make the conscious choice to be "Teacher/Leaders" rather than administrators. Perhaps because we love kids, and perhaps because we recognize the power (or lack thereof) which principals truly possess. I'd far rather deal with recalcitrant students than difficult teachers who lack the motivation (and/or ability) to do their job well.

Thus, each of us, it seems, in such a wide variety of ways, is seeking to lead from within: teaching courses, working with novices, publishing, gaining National Board certification, and writing, writing, writing...

Kathie wrote:

I also have an administrative credential I will never use. I didn't think it through because I needed units when I returned to public education. If I'd thought about it, I'd have a degree in curriculum and instruction! One thing I took away from my administrative credential program was this, written by a high-level district administrator on one of my papers, "People go into administration for one of three reasons. Money, power, or they hate kids." Boy, did that stick with me! Of course, what we need is administrators, policy wonks, and doctoral candidates who've been in the classroom and know whereof they speak.

TLN Forum member Mary Tedrow wrote about the new Harvard degree in her blog Walking to School.

Ariel commented on Mary’s blog post:

You make a lot of good points in your blog, especially about the problems with school systems being run like businesses.

School needs to be reformed, but I balk at using business as the model for that reform. How can we continue to use that paradigm after what has resulted in the current recession and what has been revealed about the corruption in the business world? When Wall Street demanded that gains appear on spreadsheets every quarter, the gains showed up. Who cared how they got there just so long as this narrow measure of success continued to build (unsustainably, as it turns out).

Education is NOT a business. We are NOT producing products. My complaint is the same one doctors make in the current health care debate.

Bill, who has a long teaching career in independent schools, wrote:

I will readily agree that the business model is being over-promoted and mis-applied to classroom practice. I will readily agree that someone who lacks classroom experience is also lacking a vital piece of preparation for being an educational leader. I will also readily agree that an educational leader who stays in touch with kids by remaining in the classroom in some capacity…brings an extra and important dimension to the job.

But I do see value in the School of Business contributing to Harvard's new Ed.L.D. program... A school is not a normal business in many ways. In particular, the business model has no place in classroom-level policies. Kids are indeed not widgets. But at the same time, an independent school that continually spends $500,000 more than it takes in will eventually fail. And anyone administering a public school into the same situation will undoubtedly be fired. So I do see the need and value of the School of Business partnering in this degree.

John, a nationally certified pre-school teacher, wrote:

I am going to school to get a PhD so that people will listen when I tell them what my four year olds taught me over the past 13 years…

As a current student in a doctoral Ed Leadership program I am a little frustrated because I can't apply for this free program at Harvard. That said, I think we may have missed a key point. This initiative is funded by the Wallace Foundation. This organization has been funding educational leadership (not teaching) for years. Supporting and researching high quality leadership is their mission.

Will there be a bunch of teachers who apply? Yes. How many will get in? We'll have to wait and see. I think this initiative is aimed at folks who want to go beyond the superintendency. I think they are expecting to get TFA kids who graduated from Princeton, not teachers like myself who attended a state college and spent the past 12 years playing with kids.

Emily observed:

Concerning the new Harvard degree, click here for a listing of their partner organizations. Very telling.

John added:

I am looking forward to seeing the details of the new leadership credential from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. I see that teachers and principals are being lumped together more and more by policymakers. Truthfully I think it is better for kids, teachers, and leadership if we see ourselves in the same boat.