GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

principal power

School gains could be at risk under new mayor, researcher warns

UCLA management professor William Ouchi spoke to a group of principals and administrators at LaGuardia High School yesterday.

UCLA management professor William Ouchi spoke to a group of principals and administrators at LaGuardia High School yesterday.

A talk to principals yesterday by one of the earliest supporters of the Bloomberg administration’s school reforms raised a question: Would Bloomberg’s changes to the public schools survive under a new mayor?

The change that most concerns the supporter, William Ouchi, a management professor of UCLA, is the administration’s effort to push power away from a central school system and into the hands of principals.

In a talk to principals gathered at LaGuardia High School in Manhattan, Ouchi warned that other school districts have seen gains eroded when a new administration re-centralizes authority. He said he hopes that would not happen in New York. “The DNA of this idea will continue to circulate,” he said.

But speaking privately before the address, he confessed concern. “The problem is sustaining the governance,” he told GothamSchools. “I’m really scared that at the end of 12 years, the next person could wash it all away.”

Ouchi, who served as an adviser to Chancellor Joel Klein in 2002, hinges his argument for principal empowerment on a slightly different argument than Klein has provided. He focuses on a factor known as “total student load” or TSL, the number of students that each teacher is responsible for educating. His research, including a new book published this month, concludes that decentralization in New York City has led to a significant decline in TSL.

When principals control their own budgets, curriculum, staffing and schedules, Ouchi found, they tend to make decisions that naturally decrease total student load in their schools. In New York City, Ouchi found that schools with empowered principals decreased student load to an average of 88 students per teacher. That’s much lower than the average of 111 students per teacher in schools where principals did not control their budgets and staffing.

Total student load is more important in predicting student achievement than any other factor such as teacher preparation or class size, Ouchi said. TSL differs from class size in that it considers the full number of students a teacher must get to know and see over the course of the day, not just in one period. “It’s not class size,” he said. “It’s the opportunity for the student to seek the teacher out during their time in school when they need help.”

At his talk yesterday, Ouchi’s message fell on receptive ears. Alex Maysonet, principal of Cypress Hills Collegiate Prep in Brooklyn, said after the presentation that Ouchi’s analysis of how principals make budget and staffing decisions reflected his own experience. “I have a lot more teachers on my staff,” he said.

The decentralized structure promoted by Ouchi and instituted by Klein has not been universally embraced, however.

Some have argued that principals are now too empowered; principals, they say, lack the administrative support and resources to be both a CEO writing a budget and a top educator leading curriculum.

Ouchi himself points out that, empowered to write their own budgets, principals seem to be cutting out non-teaching staff. In his talk, he compared an empowered school with 38 teachers and seven non-teaching staff members supporting 355 students to a larger school before Klein’s reforms. That school employed more than 100 administrative staff and almost 140 teachers to support nearly 2000 students. When principals cut school support workers from their budgets, Ouchi said, they hire more teachers.

But recent layoffs of hundreds of non-teaching school support workers have also drawn vocal protests from the municipal workers’ union, who argue that schools don’t function well without them. And others have argued that budget cuts prevent even empowered principals from making the best decisions for their schools.

Ouchi responded to criticisms by arguing that no other strategy for improving schools has worked so well in improving student performance in large school districts.

But he said that he worries that the downward shift in teachers’ student loads would be disrupted by a new administration’s reversal of Klein’s reforms.

School decentralization takes time to take root in a school district’s administrative culture, he said, and he doesn’t know precisely how long that takes. Even if Bloomberg wins a third term and Klein stays on as Chancellor, Ouchi said, that time might not be long enough if Klein’s reforms are dismantled after Bloomberg eventually leaves office.

After Ouchi’s presentation, several principals and education department administrators said they are confident the changes have already sunk in. Even with a change of administration, they said, decentralization has been so thoroughly accepted into New York’s school culture that any attempt to re-centralize the district would be fought by principals.

“My gut feeling is [re-centralization] wouldn’t happen here,” said Nigel Pugh, a former principal who now heads the Empowerment Schools Organization, one of the support networks for schools with autonomous principals.

“The changes have been so warmly embraced by such a dynamic group of principals that I think they would be difficult to reverse,” he said.

  • http://www.accountabletalk.com Mr. Talk

    Total student load? That sure sounds like a total load to me.

    He’s a supporter of Bloomberg, and a former adviser of Klein. As such, anything he says has to be viewed as suspect. Personally, not only has the number of students I teach gone UP since the BloomKlein takeover, but I have about 3 times the paperwork per child than I did 8 years ago. TANs, portfolios, ARIS, data ad nauseum….

  • http://www.classsizematters.org Leonie Haimson

    This is one of the most ridiculous things I have eve read. According to an analysis from the NY Times, there were 1600 fewer teachers last year than before the Bloomberg/Klein policies were put in place, and over 10,000 additional out of classroom positions. There are even fewer teachers in classrooms now. The bureaucracy has exploded, and almost none of the additional resources have been spent where they belong.

    The easiest way to reduce the total student load? Reduce class size – which the administration refuses to do. 86% of principals say they are unable to provide a quality education because of excessive class sizes. The main impediments, they say? Lack of space, lack of control over enrollment, and/or lack of funding.

  • District 13 parent

    Um, what gains?

  • http://MoreThoughtful.blogspot.com ceolaf

    Total student load?

    Ted Sizer, Debbie Meier and Paul Schwarz have been talking about this for a long time. This goes to the idea of every children being known well by at least one adult, and whether teachers have time to know a signficant fraction of their students well.

    I’m all in favor of lowering total student load. In fact (Leonie), I think that this is MUCH more important than than class size. Give a high school teacher just as many students at a time, but for longer and with fewer clases, and I think we’ll see much more personalization of education. Smaller classes with more classes for each teacher, so that Total Student Load is unchanged, won’t results and significant changes. (Obviously, at the primary level STL and class size tend very much to be the same thing. However, at the middle and high school level, the connection is not nearly as strict.)

    But I have a problem with Ouchi’s methodology. Or, at least, I have a lot of questions. I read the Reason.org interview Maura links to, and it raises more questions than it answers.

    * Which teachers is he including in his averaging? Is he including resource room? Special education? Any other kind of special services? Is he including gym/PE, which has different class size requirements?

    * Do his calcluations include all schools? Which schools did he include to get to his average of 88? And which to get to 111?

    * Why average, and which average does he mean? Is this a mean, or a median? As it doesn’t actually say, I assume that it is mean, when median truly seems like the best measure. So, why is he using mean?

    * What % of schools that controlled their own budgets as he want had TSL’s no lower than that of the the city average?

    * Perhaps the most meaning numbers would let us know who this impacts students. Something like, if you weight averages by students, so that we learned something about the average TSL of all students x classes. That is, look at every class on every kid’s schedule. Figure out the TSL for each student’s teacher for each class, and average all of those together, so that large classes — which impact more kids — are weighted more heavily. (What am I talking about? Well, imagine two teacher, each with 5 clasess, but one with 10 kids/class and the other with 25 kids/class. If you average by teacher, you get an average TSL of 88. But if you weight your average by class size, you get 103. Giving a small number of kids dramatically smaller classes can lower a school’s average TSL quite a bit without impacting most students.)

  • Arthur Goldstein

    I worry if Mayor Bloomberg is not Mayor that our building will be crowded only to 200% rather than 250 or 300. I don’t think anyone knows how to cram kids into trailers and closets like our current Mayor.

  • http://www.classsizematters.org Leonie Haimson

    Sorry Ceolaf; it is within classrooms that most teaching, learning and student/teacher interaction takes place.

    Reducing a teacher’s student load to 80 would make very little difference if that was the class size. And there is no evidence in the research that reducing teaching load without reducing class size makes a whit of difference. Finally, Ted Sizer and Debbie Meier talked about smaller classes as a necessary component of their small schools as well.

    Too bad Gates, New Visions, etc. and all the corpocrats left that essential part out of the equation.

  • inexile

    Let me tell you, my classroom is crammed full of kids. Some of them have terrible behavior problems. My last class today was spent trying to keep a lid on kids who are calling out, insulting each other across the room, throwing pen caps at each other, raising their hands to ask questions like what time does this class end and what time is it now. I feel so sorry for the kids in the class who come to learn. Their learning is so compromised by kids who have such huge behavioral issues. Obviously these kids had a bad teacher in every grade of school. Why else would they behave the way they do? Why else would they have such poor skills? The only advice I ever get on how to deal with kids who cannot be quiet for more than 30 seconds is to “engage them in learning.” If I had half of the 31 kids in my classroom, I might actually be able to begin to teach the poor kids who show up every day hoping to learn something.

  • http://MoreThoughtful.blogspot.com ceolaf

    Leonie,

    You won’t find a fiercer advocate than I of the idea that improving education through policy MUST be built around a strong and specific theory of action as to how the policy impacts classroom interactions. I preach all the time that education happens in the interaction between students and teachers, students and each other, students and themselves. No one need to convince me to of this.

    You site a dearth of research on TLS, and I agree. But where is the research that reducing class at the middle or high school has beneficial impacts? Heck, even if you DO have research on that, how do you do know that that it is class size that is making the difference, and not TSL? How do you know that TN Star study is not actually evidence the impact of reduced TSL, as opposed to reduced class class size?

    When teachers are planning and preparing, grading and thinking things over, it doesn’t matter how many kids were in front of them at a time. It matter how many student they are trying to accommodate, challenge, support, nurture, stretch and all the rest. Why trying to schedule one on one time at some point in the week for each student, it doesn’t matter how many kids are in front of the teacher at a time, it matters how many hours there are in a week and how many total students there are to fit in.

    Give me (as a highs school teacher), 40 kids at a time, but give them to me for 2 full hours and you’ll see something different. Give me 80 real writing assignments to assess each week, instead of 124, and I’ll be able to give different kinds of feedback. Anyone who dismisses TSL as an issue must also dismiss how time time teachers put in to their teaching beyond scheduled instructional time, the limits of human being to keep close track of other individuals, and much else.

    As for Ted Sizer, Paul Schwarz and Debbie Meier? I’ve been blessed with the opportunity spent dozens of hours talking about the nature of the secondary school with Ted, and one of his BIG issues is total teacher load, not class size at all. I’ve not spoken with Meier about it personally, but I’ve had enough opportunities to speak with Paul (Debbie’s co-principal at CPESS) and Ted together, and learned that one of the their own long conversations together has been about the limits of TSL, something far more important to either of them than class size. In fact, I believe that Paul has convinced Ted over the years that teachers can handle 80, as opposed to the 60 he had previously favored. To hear Paul tell it, the key to small classes at the secondary level is actually that it is the means by which the goal of smaller TSL can be achieved.

    So, here’s my question for you:

    Do you think that holding a middle/high school teachers’ total scheduled instructional time and TSL constant, but dividing the time and students differently so that students are in smaller classes for less time, would outcomes improve at all?

    And if you hold total scheduled instructional time and class size constant, but reduce TSL, would outcomes improve at all?

  • Mary

    What’s wrong with principals having power? As a parent, I’d rather have principals run the school than parents. Parents fight each other for heaven’s sake. When would anything get done?

  • Matthew

    The readers, seem to be missing the bigger point that Mr. Talk made in the first comment.

    Dr. O is doubtless a nice man and has some interesting ideas. But if he is a paid consultant to the same person whom he cites as critical to the process being successful, that’s hardly news.

    This is a book tour, dressed up as a policy mandate. One should set one’s expectations accordingly.

    Matthew

  • http://MoreThoughtful.blogspot.com ceolaf

    Mary,

    I don’t exactly have a problem with principals having power, though I do have certain concerns. It certainly is not about principals vs. parents, however.

    This is really about centralization vs. decentralization, a very old debate in education — one in which the pendulum of opinions sways back and forth through our history.

    The best way to explain it, in my view, it to look at the analogies. Those who believe in very strong principal power, authority and discretion see principals as CEOs of their buildings. It’s a powerful image, and one that makes a certain amount of sense. But I don’t think that it is right. Instead, I think that that principals are branch managers or a larger organization. Yes, they need certain amount of leeway and discretions, but I don’t think that they need to power, autonomy and authority of CEOs.

    In fact, I think that there are a lot of reasons why principals should not be viewed as CEOs. Among them is the fact that principals lack the kind of experienced senior executive staff to support them and to implement their visions. I prefer the branch manager analogies because it requires the central organization to provide supports for principals, rather than leaving them to thrive, fail or muddle along in isolation.

    If you really look at the ranks of principals in NYC, you see an awful lot of young and inexperienced leaders. The move towards small schools has required the hiring of far more principals, few of which enter the system with experience as principals elsewhere. So, how much power and autonomy do we want to give inexperienced school leaders — and at what point do should we count as “experienced”? For teachers, we really look at 3-5 years, at at least. Should it be any less for principals?

    Mind you, I think that school principals are THEY key leverage point for school improvement. Doing a better job of selecting them, training them and supporting them is critical to improving student outcomes system-wide, because it is principals who evaluate and support teachers. Just as we know that we need improved teachers if we want better student outcomes, we need to realize that we need better principals if we want improved teacher outcomes.

    So, my concern is putting too much on principals, more almost any of them can handle well in the best of circumstances, and certainly more than they can handle when in the early years of their tenures.

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Follow GothamSchools

RSS

Feb. 10: You’re invited!

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

1 comment so far today

Our Twitter Updates

  • RT @sarcasymptote: Just realized I will be starting the trig unit on valentines day. My valentine to my kids is 6 weeks of hell. 9 hrs ago
  • ” you don't want to come to class? Have a packet. You don't like your teacher? Have a packet” - @leoniehaimson 11 hrs ago
  • .@leonileoniehaimson brings letters from anonymous teachers with damning tales.of credit recovery: giving out CR ”packets” like skittles.. 11 hrs ago
  • At credit recovery town hall hosted by Regents. Testimony so far by principal, and 2 former teachers. Principal support; teachers critical 11 hrs ago
  • Our report about the city's decision to keep two schools open, complete w/ co-location worries & political speculation: http://t.co/RO59PMh1 11 hrs ago
  • More updates...

Archives

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  
?>