The Group that is assigned Chapter Two should post their Chapter Comment here.
48 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The focus of Chapter 2 is on the role of the principal - how it is changing, and how perceptions of what the role should be don't necessarily match reality. Specifically, the text emphasizes the current shift from the idea of principal as "building manager" toward the idea of principal as "instructional leader." Clear evidence of this change can be found in Virginia's new licensure regulations that went into effect last September. It is now possible to become licensed as a School Manager (check out page 7 at http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Compliance/TeacherED/nulicvr.pdf) who is responsible for the non-instructional aspects of running a school. Perhaps, if these positions catch on, this might provide a relatively inexpensive way to free up time so that principals can devote more of their day to instructional leadership.
This shift in the role of the principal is long overdue. The bottom line is that it is teachers who have the biggest impact on student success, and principals can have a significant impact on teacher effectiveness. Principals must create and support learning communities that allow (and require) teachers to continuously reflect on and refine their instructional practices, and principals must be diligent and conscientious when supervising and evaluating teachers to ensure that all students have access to effective instruction.
ISLLC Standard 3 is a pretty clear fit: "management of the organization, operations, and resources." A successful school manager would also need to support the shared vision of learning (#1), understand the larger political context (#6), and act with integrity and fairness (#5).
I think that the manager position is a must. I have talked with my principal and he really expresses the desirer to get into the classroom and get involved in the instructional component of the classroom. There is no assistant principal in the building, so the management, which at times can be significant takes most of his time. He is also involved in the building of a new school which leaves very little time for instructional leadership. As a staff we miss his leadership but understand the constraints on his time and help each other out.
I agree with Jonathan's statement, "if these positions catch on, this might provide a relative inexpensive way to free up time so that principals can devote more of their day to instructional leadership." I know we are currently governed by policies that dicate student/principal/assistant principal ratios. However, with tight funding issues and struggles to meet basic personnel requirements in many divisions, I have some fear that School Managers might become a substitution for Assistant Principals at times. I know this isn't the plan or the intentions. I also know that training requirements/licensure is different for Building Managers. Yet, we all know that when "crunch time" hits and the numbers aren't adding up crazy things can start happening. SO, while I am strongly in favor of Building Managers, and believe they would be a huge assett to me as the Principal, in reality will there ever really be enough funding for our schools to have this additional personnel without losing our valuable Assistant Principals? I sure hope so! What do you think?
Sherry, I think that is a valid concern. My hope is that, because of the limitations placed on School Managers ("a school manager is restricted from evaluating teachers, supervising instruction, developing and evaluating curriculum, and serving as a school’s student disciplinarian") that they simply couldn't take the place of our existing vice principals, and could free them up as well. For example, when I need to reserve a room at a local school for a staff development session, I go through one of the AP's, which doesn't seem like the best use of her time...
At my school their is no Assistant Principal. The sole principal is really swamped. Does anyone know if this new position would count with the Quality School numbers? This might be an option for smaller schools.
When I completed the individual assignment for this chapter, I estimated that the largest part of my principal's time was spent on the development of instructional practice, with far less being spent on the responsibilities dealing with management. I showed him my chart out of curiosity to see if his assessment concurred. It did, but he went a step farther to say that he really wished he had more time to spend on the non-instructional duties because those, too, play a key role in building a positive school culture. Before I thought of those areas as having to do only with the business side of administration--necessary evils--, but after reflecting on our talk, I realize that while teaching and learning are at the heart of a school's purpose, in reality without ISLLC Standard 3, teaching and learning will not occur at their optimum level. Therefore, I'd like to reiterate Jonathan's statement that "a successful school manager would also need to support the shared vision of learning."
I know for the past 16 years that I have taught principals have had so many responsibilities that instuction fell to the bottom of the list. Only in the past 3 years has the principal started becoming a part of the instructional development in our school. The downfall to this in my school is that the secretary is so overloaded with the management that teachers must use a period during the day to watch the office. This is also a problem for instruction so it seems to be a lose lose situation. I feel strongly that a building manager could help everyone, principal and teacher have the time to be "instructional leaders."
In reading chapter 2, I could visualize both principals that I am working with this semester in my internship. The middle school principal that I am working with is a case in point of a leader that communicates effectively her vision for the school. Most of her day seems to be spent working with curriculum issues and staff development. She incorporates much of the decision making with her teachers. "School Management" seems to delegated to the assistant principal which allows her the time to spend on issues specific to student outcome and achievement. The high school principal told me that a large segment of his time seems to be spent dealing with athletic issues due to the community climate that is traditionally sports oriented. He said that he is working toward a change that would reflect his vision of what his role as a school leader should be.
Good presentation. Especially found your PowerPoint useful.
I work at the largest elementary school in my county, so we're the only one to have an assistant principal. Both of them are constantly busy. There is no way one person could handle all the duties. As busy as they both are they could use a school manager and still be swamped. So, I also hope that having one would not do away with our assistant principals. Even though they are busy with their duties they each make sure they do a walk through of the entire school, so that each teacher and student sees them everyday. Not only that, but they both help with lunch duty (chatting with the students, cleaning up messes, washing tables, etc.). It is wonderful having principals that care so much! I know they would do so much more given the time.
The idea of administrators gaining "unique" knowledge is an interesting concept. Due to their workload and scheudle an effective leader must work hard to include all necessary stakeholders in the acquisition of this knowledge. Something to file away for later! Good job Jonathan!
"Change" is definitely the focus in educational leadership today. A school manager would allow principals to focus on becoming instructional leaders, rather than focusing on every day office duties. Our assistant principal does cafeteria duty and covers the phone in the afternoons. With a school manager, her time could be more effectively spent as an instructional leader. Now, teachers are joining in to help with office duties. This is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed. As others have mentioned, I hope that office managers are not seen as replacements for assistant principals. Principals, along with assistant principals and office managers, would be an effective combination in schools.
I work in six different schools, with different constructions. I have 4 elementary schools with 1 Principal for the whole school, and 2 High Schools with 4 Hall Principals and 1 Head Principals. Ironicly, the 1 Principal in the Elementary Schools generally takes more of an Instructional Leadership position. Despite the assistance of 4 hall principals, the high school principals seem more bogged down with the day-to-day operations and planning to involve themselves in the instructional issues.
Jonathan do you think that VA DOE will have some guidelines that address the school's student population in relation to needing school managers. There are lots of counties in Southwest VA that are just to small. We have principals and assistants in all of our schools and our school populations vary greatly. I see this being beneficial in heavy populated schools in the state. I do agree that principals need to devote more time to instructional leadership. Teachers need the collaboration and support to be most successful and effective.
My school has a principal, assistant principal, and an office manager. The office manager is not a building manager, but an additional secretary who also handles the attendance program and book keeping. As the division of minorities and other subgroups show areas of weakness directly from NCLB, the role of instructional leader from building manager has risen in importance. I was interviewed a few months ago for a position as a participant in a Leadership Initiative Program. One of the questions was to chose, manager or leader. My answer was an instructional leader who can manage because I believe there are duties as manager that will still exist. However, the role of a principal has shifted to instructional leader.
I agree that definitely the role of principal is changing to encompass more leadership in instruction. In my school, because of our accreditation status, the current principal has been more involved with instruction, curriculum, and staff development than any of his predecessors. Clearly the more assistance the principal has, the more he/she can focus on student learning. I just wonder about funding for such a position in localities that are already facing immense budget pressures. We need more teachers to lower class sizes, more instructional aides for increasing special services populations, etc. I see the addition of a school manager, although clearly needed, a position that might cause controversy.
Vicky, I'm not sure if the state has had anything specific to say about the new endorsement (and I wonder if anyone in the state has actually received the licensure yet). I searched the VDOE website briefly, but I couldn't find any threads or documents detailing the genesis of this new role. If anyone finds out more information, please share it with us.
I have taught for 18 years in seven different schools and have seen different instances of how a building manager would be useful. In the larger schools, there seems to be enough assistant principals that everything is covered. However, in the smaller schools I have worked in the position of building manager has seemed to fall on the secretary. This is unfair to them because of the responsibilities they are given without the compensation or recognition. This also leads to dissention among the staff. A building manager would help everyone to be able to do their specific jobs even better.
The school manager is new as well as the level 2 and level 2 principalship. There is currently a grant-based consortium developing guidelines and requirements to address the level 2 prinicipalship.
I agree that the school manager is a concept that makes sense for schools. I would venture that the vast majority of current principals have limited backgrounds in the area of management, but have been trained and are experienced in instruction. As the focus shifts with the ISLLC standards toward school leaders as "instructional leaders", the non-instructioonal aspects of school administration would most likely be better served with management personnel. I share the skepticism of Sherry in that economic issues have traditionally influenced how personnel are utilized--qualified or not. Oversight by school divisions would have to ensure that school managers and instructional leaders are engaged in the roles they are licensed for.
I have to agree with one of the comments earlier. Most of the schools that I have been around and seen, the extra work load a lot of times winds up getting put on the secrateries in the front office. I think that the addition of a building manager could greatly enhance the production of everyone in the office. I know for example that our secratery in our school plays many different roles, even sometimes as school nurse. Even the largest school in our school district only has a principal and an assistant principal therefore the secrateries there have a lot of additional things that are placed on them. If each school had a building manager, it would allow the principals to focus on the education side of the school and allow them to look in on the classes more and not have to worry with a lot of the other things that come along during the day.
I've seen a lot of comments about assistant principals. We have no assistant principal. When I began teaching in 2001, our high school and elementary school shared one principal. The two schools had someone designated as a student cooridinator in the absence of the principal. The principal was more geared to elementary. So most of his time was spent in the elementary. It was a trying time for us.
Fortunately in 2004 we got a principal for the high school.
Our school has about 175 students total. Our principal manages to walk around the school to check on us when she is there. We are just one big square with one floor. However, there are days she assists the secretary because the secretary gets swamped. Then there are days she goes to the elementary school to mop the gym floor to prepare for the basketball game.
We have someone at our school still designated as a student coordinator. But this person is also the driver's education teacher. So he's not always in the building. Having someone as just the student coordinator would be a tremendous assest in our school.
All of these comments and concerns are very valid to me and my few years of experience in teaching. I feel having an additional building/office manager, without taking away any assistant principals, would be a wonderful asset to all schools. The secretaries and the APs do often get swamped with the additional work of managing the building, which is important, but if there were a role specifically for that purpose, it would allow for time to be spent so much better by everyone. Now, if we could just get the funding....
I like the idea of the building manager, but so long as the principal is ultimately on the hook for the school, he or she is going to want to have his or her hand in the management and organization aspects of the building. In doing the individual assignment for this chapter, I realized that a small amount of my principal's time is spent on the issues that the research suggested were growing in importance for the changing role of the administrator. The majority of my principal's time is still pure management and organization. Something will eventually have to give.
This chapter was very interesting to me because I have been in three very different school systems. I am currently teaching in a K-12 private school where our principal teaches 3 high school classes, coaches 2 basketball teams, is principal, and would also be considered our superintendent. That is an overwhelming workload. It is easy to be critical of him for not being the instructional leader that research says he should be...and yet how can he find time to do that, too? This chapter has really made me think about what I believe should be the focus in schools and has challenged me to process ways to help my school and principal create that environment.
I'm, let's say, intriqued by the idea of "school mgr." The problem I see is political in nature. The last thing I'm interested in is being hired as an SM and ruffle the feathers of all those "Principals-to-be." Wouldn't that be uncomfortable for a period of time? Especially in a system that you planned on working in for the rest of your career? Would I take an SM position? Hmmm....
I wonder if a school manager would be subordinate to the principal, still making the principal responsible for the total operation of the school--or would the principal have no involvement in those areas. As a principal, I would feel better knowing that I had that responsibility, unless a school manager would be reportable to me. I do agree that the principal's most important job is to be the instructional leader of the school.
I'd like to clarify that NONE of us in this cohort would be aiming at becoming a school manager. SM's wouldn't have much (if any) coursework in instructional leadership. I think it's more for someone that had a degree in business administration or the like.
("The license is available to a candidate who holds a baccalaureate degree from a regionally accredited college or university; has three years of successful managerial experience; and is recommended for the license by a Virginia school division superintendent.")
Also, the principal would definitely have authority over the SM - just as she would over every other building employee.
The point of bringing up SM's was just to let everyone know that there might be a new way to get support in managing daily operations that would cost significantly less than an AP, and could free us up to focus more on instruction.
I have noticed that many others in the class said that their principal is overloaded with work. The chapter stated that a principal's job is very choppy. They only spend a few minutes on a task before moving onto another. I see this with my principal.
Good points about the SM position, my concern is how organizations tend to determine who really gets things done and power unofficially gets given to those individuals. The resulting actions could undermine a school leader, Great discussion points though!
After reflecting on the individual assignment, I realize that the principal at my school spends most of his time on school management and student discipline, instead of the areas of responsibilities listed on page 41. We do not have a full time assistant principal so management responsibilities often take priority over development of instruction, curriculum, and PR. Although, instructional issue are prioritized when the school does not meet state standards. A school manager would benefit the overall effectiveness of the school, so the principal could spend more time on instructional issues.
Something just struck me as I was reading all of the comments. Our AP handles discipline, magmt, and works games and things. Our Principal does mostly management with a very small percentage of his time devoted to instructional leadership. Obviously, it is up to the teachers to develop and watch over their instruction. What I have just realized is that our Prin. has been out of the classroom for nearyl 10 years, while our AP has only been out 2. I think our AP, in our situation, would at this point be more suited to directing our instructional leadership. He was a good teacher and I know that he would handle the task responsibly and work to be effective. Why is it a "given" in so many school districts that the Principal be responsible for instruction? Why can't that responsibility be delegated to the one that it suits the most? If school managers can be hired to mangage, why can't instructional leaders be hired to lead such things at a school. Where are our priorities? Budget and things are definitely necessities, but as the stem to ISLLC says...we are in it for the success of the students.
I think that role of "building manager" and the role of "instructional leader" come down to time allocation. Obviously as an adminstrator there are going to be things such as discipline, managing finances, district and regional sports meetings, etc. that are going to demand our time. However, one can make instructional leadership a priority by doing things such as monitoring academic progress, assesing and observing teachers, developing and researching new instructional methods, providing and seeking new forms of professional development, etc. I think that if you allocate your time appropriately you can be both. I know that management is going to be part of the job, but being the educational leader should be the first priority. In another book that I am reading titled "You Don't Need a Title To Be a Leader" by Mark Sanborn, he states that "Managers have employees, Leaders win followers. Managers react to change, Leaders create change. Managers create groups, Leaders create teams." I think these are fitting examples of how we need to be educational leaders first, and building managers second.
I also agree that the role of principal is changing. As a business graduate, I see how a school manager could help with the duties placed on principals but do not feel this would be a "relatively inexpensive way" to allow principals to spend more time on instruction.
I have an office duty one period per day and because of this time have become more aware of the business obligations of the school. I agree that some of these duties fall on school secretaries and something needs to be done to help administration spend more time on instruction.
Because of my school's accrediation status, my principal spends more time on instruction and staff development than in the past. My school implemented the "Effective Schoolwide Discipline" model a couple of years ago and are beginning to see postive results and change in student behavior. Because of this, there are fewer office referrals and this has allowed administration to spend more time on instruction.
I reviewed a few articles last semester regarding the vast amount of responsibilities that principals alone had to undertake. The articles suggested that a small group of teachers come together as a group and act as mini vice-principals. These individuals would take turns helping with the management of the school. They would act as an intervention; they would try to solve the small problems before they would go before the principal. In this new type of environment, the principal would be free to handle the bigger needs of the school. I see many pros and cons to this approach.
Currently, my principal dedicates most of her time working with instructional practices. She sees herself as our instructional leader, and she wants to help us to become better teachers. However, in the recent weeks, I have noticed that much of her time is consumed with behavior problems and parent issues.
I think Ashley Chapman's statement "a small group of teachers come together as a group and act as mini vice-principals" is very interesting. Like Ashley said there are pros and cons. One big question would be who is apart of this group? Department leaders? Volunteers? Graduate students? If this could work, it would obviously be helpful to the administrators.
There are a lot of good comments about having a building managers in our schools and some may need them but I believe a school can flourish with out one. Jason mentioned eary about time allocation and I believe he is dead on. Being a good successful leader (Principal) to me is about planning, being prepared, delegating, and quality time spent on any one area. The best principal I have ever worked for had everyone on the same page and everyone knew what was expected of them. This principal would make sure she put a very good team together and to be assigned something of great importance didn't mean you had to be an assistant principal. I think if a school is struggling and is in jeopardy of being taken over by the state you might need a building manager. Other issues might be that times might be slow for the building manager. To me thats why secreteries and others wear many different hats. Just one mans opinion.
Let’s not forget about the new NCLB rules and regs. If a school manager relieves some of the pressure from the regular administration then I think that it would be beneficial. I know that I'm going to be a Principal to be an instructional leader and to make a difference academically. If I wanted to be a true manager then I would have gone into business. However, we manage to have instruction, bottom line. I'm for school managers as long as they work together with current administration. Remember we are here for the success of students and we can’t forget that #2 ISLLC standard, is our top priority.
How many principals have you heard say, "I want to help teachers?" I have heard several say that and then follow that statement with "but I don't have time." Jonathan summed that up in just a few words, perceptions of what the role should be don't necessarily match reality. I think we all have that in our minds about helping teachers but reality is that student discipline and parents take up most of our time. I have to admit my graph had three areas that were equal because I felt like at the time professional development is of most importance but now as I think back about my chart I find myself wondering how much of our assistant principal's time was spent doing the professional development? I agree that principals should focus most of their attention on the teachers and give them ways to improve teaching strategies.
I still think schools can do with out "building managers" but I will admit after reading some of these blogs that something needs to happen on the leadership front at some of these schools.
It could be possible for a building to run without a building manager, but then you are relying on everyone to be on the "same page." There will always be a variety of ideas formulating from individuals, and without a leader, there may be lots of uprisings throughout the building. I guess something like a civil war. I feel a building manager can be the figure head of a school and the leader of the building without "getting in the way" of the work done by teachers and other staff members. Principals need to provide a focus and sense of comfort to a building, which in the long run, will create the best learning environment.
Wow! I love reading some of your opinions on these issues (good to know I'm not alone).
At my school we recently have inquired a "lead teacher." As far as I was informed his major job is to help boost our math scores (which have been below average for the past few years). Unfortunatly, when he first came to my school he was used as an assistant principal or school manager (he basically dealt with discipline issues). Recently that role has been changed slightly, but this person who is basically an assistant principal is on the same pay scale as all other 10 month employees. This is a job with much more responsiblity than a teacher, yet there is zero compensation.
I'm very excited with the changes that are occuring within the roles of the administrator. I'm just concerned whether schools will honor these new positions with the same compensation as other administrators.
I truly like the idea of a building manager. This definitely could be a way to free up administrators so they have time to do instruction and handle "true leadership" roles of education. In the meantime, if we could get the payscales increased for the administrators' worth... that would be AWESOME!!!
Building managers is a great concept, but I don't think in small school districts like we have here they will ever happen. It would be great if the principal could concentrate solely on curriculum and discipline. It seems that money gets tighter ever year and all aspects of building management are left up to the principal. I look for it to stay that way. Maybe a wave of the future.
Like many others, I teach at a school in which there is no assistant principal. While our principal is noticeably over-worked and endures the consequences of serving as the sole building administrator, it is ultimately our students who suffer. At various times throughout the year, Title I paraprofessionals and Americorps tutors are pulled from their roles as instructional / remediation aides to assist in management responsibilities. These increments of time add up and remedial time is lost. I feel that any additional resources used in the recruiting and maintaining of additional personnel would benefit every member of the school community-most importantly, our students.
48 comments:
The focus of Chapter 2 is on the role of the principal - how it is changing, and how perceptions of what the role should be don't necessarily match reality. Specifically, the text emphasizes the current shift from the idea of principal as "building manager" toward the idea of principal as "instructional leader." Clear evidence of this change can be found in Virginia's new licensure regulations that went into effect last September. It is now possible to become licensed as a School Manager (check out page 7 at http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Compliance/TeacherED/nulicvr.pdf) who is responsible for the non-instructional aspects of running a school. Perhaps, if these positions catch on, this might provide a relatively inexpensive way to free up time so that principals can devote more of their day to instructional leadership.
This shift in the role of the principal is long overdue. The bottom line is that it is teachers who have the biggest impact on student success, and principals can have a significant impact on teacher effectiveness. Principals must create and support learning communities that allow (and require) teachers to continuously reflect on and refine their instructional practices, and principals must be diligent and conscientious when supervising and evaluating teachers to ensure that all students have access to effective instruction.
Excellent thought on the issues of management and leadership. Which ISLLC might support the issues assigned to the School Manager?
ISLLC Standard 3 is a pretty clear fit: "management of the organization, operations, and resources." A successful school manager would also need to support the shared vision of learning (#1), understand the larger political context (#6), and act with integrity and fairness (#5).
I think that the manager position is a must. I have talked with my principal and he really expresses the desirer to get into the classroom and get involved in the instructional component of the classroom. There is no assistant principal in the building, so the management, which at times can be significant takes most of his time. He is also involved in the building of a new school which leaves very little time for instructional leadership. As a staff we miss his leadership but understand the constraints on his time and help each other out.
I agree with Jonathan's statement, "if these positions catch on, this might provide a relative inexpensive way to free up time so that principals can devote more of their day to instructional leadership." I know we are currently governed by policies that dicate student/principal/assistant principal ratios. However, with tight funding issues and struggles to meet basic personnel requirements in many divisions, I have some fear that School Managers might become a substitution for Assistant Principals at times. I know this isn't the plan or the intentions. I also know that training requirements/licensure is different for Building Managers. Yet, we all know that when "crunch time" hits and the numbers aren't adding up crazy things can start happening. SO, while I am strongly in favor of Building Managers, and believe they would be a huge assett to me as the Principal, in reality will there ever really be enough funding for our schools to have this additional personnel without losing our valuable Assistant Principals? I sure hope so! What do you think?
Sherry, I think that is a valid concern. My hope is that, because of the limitations placed on School Managers ("a school manager is restricted from evaluating teachers, supervising instruction, developing and evaluating curriculum, and serving as a school’s student disciplinarian") that they simply couldn't take the place of our existing vice principals, and could free them up as well. For example, when I need to reserve a room at a local school for a staff development session, I go through one of the AP's, which doesn't seem like the best use of her time...
At my school their is no Assistant Principal. The sole principal is really swamped. Does anyone know if this new position would count with the Quality School numbers? This might be an option for smaller schools.
When I completed the individual assignment for this chapter, I estimated that the largest part of my principal's time was spent on the development of instructional practice, with far less being spent on the responsibilities dealing with management. I showed him my chart out of curiosity to see if his assessment concurred. It did, but he went a step farther to say that he really wished he had more time to spend on the non-instructional duties because those, too, play a key role in building a positive school culture. Before I thought of those areas as having to do only with the business side of administration--necessary evils--, but after reflecting on our talk, I realize that while teaching and learning are at the heart of a school's purpose, in reality without ISLLC Standard 3, teaching and learning will not occur at their optimum level. Therefore, I'd like to reiterate Jonathan's statement that "a successful school manager would also need to support the shared vision of learning."
I know for the past 16 years that I have taught principals have had so many responsibilities that instuction fell to the bottom of the list. Only in the past 3 years has the principal started becoming a part of the instructional development in our school. The downfall to this in my school is that the secretary is so overloaded with the management that teachers must use a period during the day to watch the office. This is also a problem for instruction so it seems to be a lose lose situation. I feel strongly that a building manager could help everyone, principal and teacher have the time to be "instructional leaders."
In reading chapter 2, I could visualize both principals that I am working with this semester in my internship. The middle school principal that I am working with is a case in point of a leader that communicates effectively her vision for the school. Most of her day seems to be spent working with curriculum issues and staff development. She incorporates much of the decision making with her teachers. "School Management" seems to delegated to the assistant principal which allows her the time to spend on issues specific to student outcome and achievement. The high school principal told me that a large segment of his time seems to be spent dealing with athletic issues due to the community climate that is traditionally sports oriented. He said that he is working toward a change that would reflect his vision of what his role as a school leader should be.
Good presentation. Especially found your PowerPoint useful.
I work at the largest elementary school in my county, so we're the only one to have an assistant principal. Both of them are constantly busy. There is no way one person could handle all the duties. As busy as they both are they could use a school manager and still be swamped. So, I also hope that having one would not do away with our assistant principals. Even though they are busy with their duties they each make sure they do a walk through of the entire school, so that each teacher and student sees them everyday. Not only that, but they both help with lunch duty (chatting with the students, cleaning up messes, washing tables, etc.). It is wonderful having principals that care so much! I know they would do so much more given the time.
The idea of administrators gaining "unique" knowledge is an interesting concept. Due to their workload and scheudle an effective leader must work hard to include all necessary stakeholders in the acquisition of this knowledge. Something to file away for later! Good job Jonathan!
"Change" is definitely the focus in educational leadership today. A school manager would allow principals to focus on becoming instructional leaders, rather than focusing on every day office duties. Our assistant principal does cafeteria duty and covers the phone in the afternoons. With a school manager, her time could be more effectively spent as an instructional leader. Now, teachers are joining in to help with office duties. This is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed. As others have mentioned, I hope that office managers are not seen as replacements for assistant principals. Principals, along with assistant principals and office managers, would be an effective combination in schools.
I work in six different schools, with different constructions. I have 4 elementary schools with 1 Principal for the whole school, and 2 High Schools with 4 Hall Principals and 1 Head Principals. Ironicly, the 1 Principal in the Elementary Schools generally takes more of an Instructional Leadership position. Despite the assistance of 4 hall principals, the high school principals seem more bogged down with the day-to-day operations and planning to involve themselves in the instructional issues.
Jonathan do you think that VA DOE will have some guidelines that address the school's student population in relation to needing school managers. There are lots of counties in Southwest VA that are just to small. We have principals and assistants in all of our schools and our school populations vary greatly. I see this being beneficial in heavy populated schools in the state. I do agree that principals need to devote more time to instructional leadership. Teachers need the collaboration and support to be most successful and effective.
My school has a principal, assistant principal, and an office manager. The office manager is not a building manager, but an additional secretary who also handles the attendance program and book keeping. As the division of minorities and other subgroups show areas of weakness directly from NCLB, the role of instructional leader from building manager has risen in importance. I was interviewed a few months ago for a position as a participant in a Leadership Initiative Program. One of the questions was to chose, manager or leader. My answer was an instructional leader who can manage because I believe there are duties as manager that will still exist. However, the role of a principal has shifted to instructional leader.
I agree that definitely the role of principal is changing to encompass more leadership in instruction. In my school, because of our accreditation status, the current principal has been more involved with instruction, curriculum, and staff development than any of his predecessors. Clearly the more assistance the principal has, the more he/she can focus on student learning. I just wonder about funding for such a position in localities that are already facing immense budget pressures. We need more teachers to lower class sizes, more instructional aides for increasing special services populations, etc. I see the addition of a school manager, although clearly needed, a position that might cause controversy.
Vicky, I'm not sure if the state has had anything specific to say about the new endorsement (and I wonder if anyone in the state has actually received the licensure yet). I searched the VDOE website briefly, but I couldn't find any threads or documents detailing the genesis of this new role. If anyone finds out more information, please share it with us.
I have taught for 18 years in seven different schools and have seen different instances of how a building manager would be useful. In the larger schools, there seems to be enough assistant principals that everything is covered. However, in the smaller schools I have worked in the position of building manager has seemed to fall on the secretary. This is unfair to them because of the responsibilities they are given without the compensation or recognition. This also leads to dissention among the staff. A building manager would help everyone to be able to do their specific jobs even better.
The school manager is new as well as the level 2 and level 2 principalship. There is currently a grant-based consortium developing guidelines and requirements to address the level 2 prinicipalship.
I agree that the school manager is a concept that makes sense for schools. I would venture that the vast majority of current principals have limited backgrounds in the area of management, but have been trained and are experienced in instruction. As the focus shifts with the ISLLC standards toward school leaders as "instructional leaders", the non-instructioonal aspects of school administration would most likely be better served with management personnel. I share the skepticism of Sherry in that economic issues have traditionally influenced how personnel are utilized--qualified or not. Oversight by school divisions would have to ensure that school managers and instructional leaders are engaged in the roles they are licensed for.
I have to agree with one of the comments earlier. Most of the schools that I have been around and seen, the extra work load a lot of times winds up getting put on the secrateries in the front office. I think that the addition of a building manager could greatly enhance the production of everyone in the office. I know for example that our secratery in our school plays many different roles, even sometimes as school nurse. Even the largest school in our school district only has a principal and an assistant principal therefore the secrateries there have a lot of additional things that are placed on them. If each school had a building manager, it would allow the principals to focus on the education side of the school and allow them to look in on the classes more and not have to worry with a lot of the other things that come along during the day.
I've seen a lot of comments about assistant principals. We have no assistant principal. When I began teaching in 2001, our high school and elementary school shared one principal. The two schools had someone designated as a student cooridinator in the absence of the principal. The principal was more geared to elementary. So most of his time was spent in the elementary. It was a trying time for us.
Fortunately in 2004 we got a principal for the high school.
Our school has about 175 students total. Our principal manages to walk around the school to check on us when she is there. We are just one big square with one floor. However, there are days she assists the secretary because the secretary gets swamped. Then there are days she goes to the elementary school to mop the gym floor to prepare for the basketball game.
We have someone at our school still designated as a student coordinator. But this person is also the driver's education teacher. So he's not always in the building. Having someone as just the student coordinator would be a tremendous assest in our school.
All of these comments and concerns are very valid to me and my few years of experience in teaching. I feel having an additional building/office manager, without taking away any assistant principals, would be a wonderful asset to all schools. The secretaries and the APs do often get swamped with the additional work of managing the building, which is important, but if there were a role specifically for that purpose, it would allow for time to be spent so much better by everyone. Now, if we could just get the funding....
Great job, Jonathan!
I like the idea of the building manager, but so long as the principal is ultimately on the hook for the school, he or she is going to want to have his or her hand in the management and organization aspects of the building. In doing the individual assignment for this chapter, I realized that a small amount of my principal's time is spent on the issues that the research suggested were growing in importance for the changing role of the administrator. The majority of my principal's time is still pure management and organization. Something will eventually have to give.
Be careful that you don't work yourself out of job!
This chapter was very interesting to me because I have been in three very different school systems. I am currently teaching in a K-12 private school where our principal teaches 3 high school classes, coaches 2 basketball teams, is principal, and would also be considered our superintendent. That is an overwhelming workload. It is easy to be critical of him for not being the instructional leader that research says he should be...and yet how can he find time to do that, too? This chapter has really made me think about what I believe should be the focus in schools and has challenged me to process ways to help my school and principal create that environment.
I'm, let's say, intriqued by the idea of "school mgr."
The problem I see is political in nature. The last thing I'm interested in is being hired as an SM and ruffle the feathers of all those "Principals-to-be."
Wouldn't that be uncomfortable for a period of time? Especially in a system that you planned on working in for the rest of your career? Would I take an SM position? Hmmm....
I wonder if a school manager would be subordinate to the principal, still making the principal responsible for the total operation of the school--or would the principal have no involvement in those areas. As a principal, I would feel better knowing that I had that responsibility, unless a school manager would be reportable to me. I do agree that the principal's most important job is to be the instructional leader of the school.
I'd like to clarify that NONE of us in this cohort would be aiming at becoming a school manager. SM's wouldn't have much (if any) coursework in instructional leadership. I think it's more for someone that had a degree in business administration or the like.
("The license is available to a candidate who holds a baccalaureate
degree from a regionally accredited college or university; has three years of successful managerial experience; and is recommended for the license by a Virginia school division superintendent.")
Also, the principal would definitely have authority over the SM - just as she would over every other building employee.
The point of bringing up SM's was just to let everyone know that there might be a new way to get support in managing daily operations that would cost significantly less than an AP, and could free us up to focus more on instruction.
I have noticed that many others in the class said that their principal is overloaded with work. The chapter stated that a principal's job is very choppy. They only spend a few minutes on a task before moving onto another. I see this with my principal.
Good points about the SM position, my concern is how organizations tend to determine who really gets things done and power unofficially gets given to those individuals. The resulting actions could undermine a school leader, Great discussion points though!
After reflecting on the individual assignment, I realize that the principal at my school spends most of his time on school management and student discipline, instead of the areas of responsibilities listed on page 41. We do not have a full time assistant principal so management responsibilities often take priority over development of instruction, curriculum, and PR. Although, instructional issue are prioritized when the school does not meet state standards. A school manager would benefit the overall effectiveness of the school, so the principal could spend more time on instructional issues.
Something just struck me as I was reading all of the comments. Our AP handles discipline, magmt, and works games and things. Our Principal does mostly management with a very small percentage of his time devoted to instructional leadership. Obviously, it is up to the teachers to develop and watch over their instruction. What I have just realized is that our Prin. has been out of the classroom for nearyl 10 years, while our AP has only been out 2. I think our AP, in our situation, would at this point be more suited to directing our instructional leadership. He was a good teacher and I know that he would handle the task responsibly and work to be effective. Why is it a "given" in so many school districts that the Principal be responsible for instruction? Why can't that responsibility be delegated to the one that it suits the most? If school managers can be hired to mangage, why can't instructional leaders be hired to lead such things at a school. Where are our priorities? Budget and things are definitely necessities, but as the stem to ISLLC says...we are in it for the success of the students.
I think that role of "building manager" and the role of "instructional leader" come down to time allocation. Obviously as an adminstrator there are going to be things such as discipline, managing finances, district and regional sports meetings, etc. that are going to demand our time. However, one can make instructional leadership a priority by doing things such as monitoring academic progress, assesing and observing teachers, developing and researching new instructional methods, providing and seeking new forms of professional development, etc. I think that if you allocate your time appropriately you can be both. I know that management is going to be part of the job, but being the educational leader should be the first priority. In another book that I am reading titled "You Don't Need a Title To Be a Leader" by Mark Sanborn, he states that "Managers have employees, Leaders win followers. Managers react to change, Leaders create change. Managers create groups, Leaders create teams." I think these are fitting examples of how we need to be educational leaders first, and building managers second.
I also agree that the role of principal is changing. As a business graduate, I see how a school manager could help with the duties placed on principals but do not feel this would be a "relatively inexpensive way" to allow principals to spend more time on instruction.
I have an office duty one period per day and because of this time have become more aware of the business obligations of the school. I agree that some of these duties fall on school secretaries and something needs to be done to help administration spend more time on instruction.
Because of my school's accrediation status, my principal spends more time on instruction and staff development than in the past. My school implemented the "Effective Schoolwide Discipline" model a couple of years ago and are beginning to see postive results and change in student behavior. Because of this, there are fewer office referrals and this has allowed administration to spend more time on instruction.
I reviewed a few articles last semester regarding the vast amount of responsibilities that principals alone had to undertake. The articles suggested that a small group of teachers come together as a group and act as mini vice-principals. These individuals would take turns helping with the management of the school. They would act as an intervention; they would try to solve the small problems before they would go before the principal. In this new type of environment, the principal would be free to handle the bigger needs of the school. I see many pros and cons to this approach.
Currently, my principal dedicates most of her time working with instructional practices. She sees herself as our instructional leader, and she wants to help us to become better teachers. However, in the recent weeks, I have noticed that much of her time is consumed with behavior problems and parent issues.
I think Ashley Chapman's statement "a small group of teachers come together as a group and act as mini vice-principals" is very interesting. Like Ashley said there are pros and cons. One big question would be who is apart of this group? Department leaders? Volunteers? Graduate students? If this could work, it would obviously be helpful to the administrators.
There are a lot of good comments about having a building managers in our schools and some may need them but I believe a school can flourish with out one. Jason mentioned eary about time allocation and I believe he is dead on. Being a good successful leader (Principal) to me is about planning, being prepared, delegating, and quality time spent on any one area. The best principal I have ever worked for had everyone on the same page and everyone knew what was expected of them. This principal would make sure she put a very good team together and to be assigned something of great importance didn't mean you had to be an assistant principal. I think if a school is struggling and is in jeopardy of being taken over by the state you might need a building manager. Other issues might be that times might be slow for the building manager. To me thats why secreteries and others wear many different hats. Just one mans opinion.
Let’s not forget about the new NCLB rules and regs. If a school manager relieves some of the pressure from the regular administration then I think that it would be beneficial. I know that I'm going to be a Principal to be an instructional leader and to make a difference academically. If I wanted to be a true manager then I would have gone into business. However, we manage to have instruction, bottom line. I'm for school managers as long as they work together with current administration. Remember we are here for the success of students and we can’t forget that #2 ISLLC standard, is our top priority.
How many principals have you heard say, "I want to help teachers?" I have heard several say that and then follow that statement with "but I don't have time." Jonathan summed that up in just a few words, perceptions of what the role should be don't necessarily match reality. I think we all have that in our minds about helping teachers but reality is that student discipline and parents take up most of our time. I have to admit my graph had three areas that were equal because I felt like at the time professional development is of most importance but now as I think back about my chart I find myself wondering how much of our assistant principal's time was spent doing the professional development?
I agree that principals should focus most of their attention on the teachers and give them ways to improve teaching strategies.
I still think schools can do with out "building managers" but I will admit after reading some of these blogs that something needs to happen on the leadership front at some of these schools.
A dean of students like in college who stictly deals with discipline would solve a lot of problems.
It could be possible for a building to run without a building manager, but then you are relying on everyone to be on the "same page." There will always be a variety of ideas formulating from individuals, and without a leader, there may be lots of uprisings throughout the building. I guess something like a civil war. I feel a building manager can be the figure head of a school and the leader of the building without "getting in the way" of the work done by teachers and other staff members. Principals need to provide a focus and sense of comfort to a building, which in the long run, will create the best learning environment.
Wow! I love reading some of your opinions on these issues (good to know I'm not alone).
At my school we recently have inquired a "lead teacher." As far as I was informed his major job is to help boost our math scores (which have been below average for the past few years). Unfortunatly, when he first came to my school he was used as an assistant principal or school manager (he basically dealt with discipline issues). Recently that role has been changed slightly, but this person who is basically an assistant principal is on the same pay scale as all other 10 month employees. This is a job with much more responsiblity than a teacher, yet there is zero compensation.
I'm very excited with the changes that are occuring within the roles of the administrator. I'm just concerned whether schools will honor these new positions with the same compensation as other administrators.
I truly like the idea of a building manager. This definitely could be a way to free up administrators so they have time to do instruction and handle "true leadership" roles of education. In the meantime, if we could get the payscales increased for the administrators' worth... that would be AWESOME!!!
Building managers is a great concept, but I don't think in small school districts like we have here they will ever happen. It would be great if the principal could concentrate solely on curriculum and discipline. It seems that money gets tighter ever year and all aspects of building management are left up to the principal. I look for it to stay that way. Maybe a wave of the future.
Like many others, I teach at a school in which there is no assistant principal. While our principal is noticeably over-worked and endures the consequences of serving as the sole building administrator, it is ultimately our students who suffer. At various times throughout the year, Title I paraprofessionals and Americorps tutors are pulled from their roles as instructional / remediation aides to assist in management responsibilities. These increments of time add up and remedial time is lost. I feel that any additional resources used in the recruiting and maintaining of additional personnel would benefit every member of the school community-most importantly, our students.
Post a Comment