I’m at best a casual observer of the New York City public school system. The complexities of the politics surrounding any big issue in the Big Apple are daunting. But I’ve watched with detached interest over the years as the team of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and schools Chancellor Joel Klein have made controversial and Herculean attempts to yank that behemoth out of a deep ditch.
Matters have gotten more interesting over the past couple of weeks, with Klein’s announcement that he is moving into a senior position at News Corp. Bloomberg immediately settled on a successor to the high-energy, abrasive Klein.
And whom did he choose? Publishing executive Cathie Black, she of purportedly amazing managerial skills and zero public education experience.
Reaction to Black’s appointment from the usual suspects was predictable. Schools aren’t businesses and kids aren’t widgets. How dare the mayor have the temerity to appoint a business person to a position that requires a different set of skills than running a business!
I find these arguments tiresome. After all, how many career educators have done a bang-up job turning around an urban school system? The answer would be none. Education is not some mysterious priesthood where only initiates know the deep secrets to unlocking success. In fact no one does; or if once we knew, we have collectively forgotten.
Still, I have to side with the naysayers this time, albeit not for their reasons.
The always iconoclastic Rick Hess said it better than I could in his Rick Hess Straight Up blog on Education Week’s website. So let me quote Hess and then give my own spin on some of his points.
“I think schools and districts pose a diverse array of leadership challenges, and that leaders facing different challenges will require various skills. Sometimes, familiarity with K-12 is a huge asset. Other times, the experiences, worldview, and skills that come with that background may actually be a hindrance. I see experience in a school district, in school leadership, or in dealing with the public sector as important assets, which ought to be weighed alongside know-how in transforming and redesigning organizations, boosting cost-effectiveness, recruiting talented personnel, managing vendor relationships, and so forth. I think Joel Klein’s skills and experience—as a CEO, top-shelf lawyer, high-ranking Clinton administration official, and NYC product—made him a phenomenal fit for the job.
“But, just as it’s naive and simple-minded to insist “you need to be an educator to lead schools,” it’s equally misguided to imagine that executives are interchangeable.”
The problem with Black, Hess and others argue, isn’t her lack of education background. It is her apparently complete lack of interest in public education, and total lack of track record even volunteering in a public school.
Has Bloomberg become so infatuated with his mostly adulatory press clippings that he believes he can pluck any successful corporate executive, stick them in one of the globe’s most challenging jobs and expect them to succeed, just because he was the one to anoint them?
That’s called hubris. And those of us who have even skimmed the Greek myths know where that leads.
Hess concludes:
“To make things worse, our intrepid friends at the Gotham Schools blog have noted: “In her memoir-cum-business advice guide, Basic Black, the chancellor appointee describes her skills as far more attuned to sales and marketing than financial analysis. While she likes the operational side of business, she writes, ‘Too much data and too many spreadsheets make my eyes glaze over.’” Again, not exactly the ideal testimonial from someone coming in to wrestle with budget cuts and execution.
“Black might be terrific. I’ve never met her and know nothing about her. But nothing that’s been said on her behalf thus far reassures me that she’s right for the job or demonstrates that Bloomberg thought carefully about why she was the right choice for this crucial post. Fortunately, there’s much time until she takes the helm and both Black and Bloomberg would be well-advised to use the next six weeks to make the case that she’s a promising pick—and not just a CEO looking for a new challenge.”
New York State Education Commissioner David M. Steiner may have pulled Bloomberg’s fat from the fire by insisting that the mayor appoint a career educator to serve as Black’s chief deputy. But that alone does not guarantee success.
And please, don’t let Bloomberg’s concession (and he’s not known to make many) to Steiner embolden his edu-critics. The argument that only educators can run education institutions is narrow-minded and parochial, and isn’t germane to the Bloomberg-Black issue.
But it is emblematic of an ongoing annoyance on the education debate, locally and nationally.
Perhaps I am overly sensitive because I have worked in education policy for 15 years but have never taught or worked in a K-12 public school. But there is a wrongheaded mindset among certain educators and teachers’ associations that only people who have walked in their shoes have a legitimate point of view about education issues.
So please, let’s dispense with the following bromides:
- You have to be an educator to be a legitimate candidate for superintendent or education commissioner.
- You have to have been a teacher or principal to speak knowledgeably on education issues. I honor teachers for their deep knowledge and classroom experience, which is invaluable. It does not, however, give them a monopoly on wisdom and virtue.
- You are “anti-teacher” if you view any of the positions staked out by unions as retrograde and counter to the best interests of public education in this country. (If this were true, then I would be able to name a lot of teachers who are anti-teacher).
In exchange, I pledge to stop reverting to the three most annoying bromides readers identify as endemic to this space and to the world of education reform. Please let me know your top three. Top vote-getters will be banished from this blog.
Popularity: 5% [?]
My top five annoying bromides are listed in this rant here: http://www.sabrinastevensshupe.com/blog/2010/10/please-stop.html
While all five have appeared with varying frequency on EdNews, “You’re defending a failed system/the status quo” comes up with maddening frequency. Can we get rid of that, please??? No one engaging on this issue is defending unequal outcomes for students, we just disagree on the best ways to make much-needed changes. There’s something particularly offensive–and ignorant!– about accusing the people who consciously choose to devote their lives to serving these children (along with the personal & professional sacrifices that entails), and especially those children’s very own *parents*, of defending injustice.
Mr. Gottlieb,
Let’s cherrypick your argument but change the career to your own and see how reasonable it sounds…
And whom did he choose? Publishing executive Cathie Black, she of purportedly amazing managerial skills and zero journalism experience.
I find these arguments tiresome. After all, how many career journalists have done a bang-up job turning around an urban newspaper? The answer would be none. Journalism is not some mysterious priesthood where only initiates know the deep secrets to unlocking success. In fact no one does; or if once we knew, we have collectively forgotten.
The problem with Black, Hess and others argue, isn’t her lack of a journalism background. It is her apparently complete lack of interest in journalism, and total lack of track record even volunteering [at] a newspaper.
And please, don’t let Bloomberg’s concession (and he’s not known to make many) to Steiner embolden his journo-critics. The argument that only journalists can run journalism institutions is narrow-minded and parochial, and isn’t germane to the Bloomberg-Black issue.
But it is emblematic of an ongoing annoyance on the journalism debate, locally and nationally.
Perhaps I am overly sensitive because I have worked in journalism policy for 15 years but have never reported or worked as a journalist. But there is a wrongheaded mindset among certain journalists and journalistic associations that only people who have walked in their shoes have a legitimate point of view about journalism issues.
So please, let’s dispense with the following bromides:
1. You have to be a journalist to be a legitimate candidate for editor or publisher.
2. You have to have been a reporter or editor to speak knowledgeably on journalism issues. I honor journalists for their deep knowledge and journalistic experience, which is invaluable. It does not, however, give them a monopoly on wisdom and virtue.
3. You are “anti-journalist” if you view any of the positions staked out by unions as retrograde and counter to the best interests of public journalism in this country. (If this were true, then I would be able to name a lot of journalists who are anti-journalist).
Mr. Gottlieb states that one needn’t be an educator to be a superintendent and perhaps he’s right. Using that logic, surgery doesn’t necessarily need to be performed by a certified surgeon, bridges don’t necessarily have to be designed by engineers and just about anyone can perform oral surgery. Well, I find that logic sophistic. Furthermore, surgery performed by an amateur can result in prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. Education, surgery, bridge design and dentistry are not the domain of amateurs despite claims otherwise. Michael Bennet and Tom Boasberg, both whom have been superintendents in Denver Public Schools (DPS), are not professional educators and neither “turned around” DPS. Cathie Black follows Joel Klein as superintendent of New York City schools, another noneducator who failed to turn around those schools. Amateur educators are having the same success turning around urban school systems as are charter schools. Until schools are adequately funded and reform movements include all stakeholders in a democratic method and the old authoritarian governance structure is removed, public schools will remain “stuck in the mud.”
You wrote…” I find these arguments tiresome. After all, how many career educators have done a bang-up job turning around an urban school system? The answer would be none.”
Would Tony Alvarado qualify for his work in both District 2 and District 4 in NYC? Those aren’t “systems” if you view them as part of the NYC system, but each are the size of many other urban areas so I think they could be viewed as a system in this discussion.
Based on what I have read and observed I think we could argue that he is an example of a career educator that did a bang up job.
I think your lack of education experience comes through loud and clear.
Alan, as someone who lived in NYC for 15 years and watched the public schools closely, I do think Joel Klein (and Mayor Bloomberg) made some real differences. Despite some earlier big name chancellors, with education credentials, the system was so huge and so bureaucratized that it wasn’t making much forward progress in the 1980s and 1990s. A shake-up was needed, and Klein did it far more artfully than did Michelle Rhee in DC.
While it has hardly been fully “turned around” and some of the progress is subject to dispute (see Diane Ravitch), in my view NYC has made more progress towards becoming a dynamic urban system than almost any other major city.
At the same time, it is hubris to think that just any business executive, especially one with no prior demonstrated intereste in educaiton, can do what Joel Klein did. I think the new appointment is a mistake for that reason.
And, while I’m being agreeable, I’ll agree with Marc Waxman that Tony Alvarado did more to turn around districts within NYC than anyone, and while there aren’t that many super-successful stories of urban district turnarounds, there are some that have made much more progress than others – headed by a mix of people, some with education backgrounds, others with different backgrounds.
Another part of the lesson here is mayoral control – it has some advantages, and some evidence shows more success than in systems headed by school boards, and at least it has more direct accountability.
The problem with business men running education systems is a very simple one: in education, there is no profit motive.
Business is driven by profit, and, thus, many of the choices made in business are about improving the profit margin of a business. In education, that motive is removed. In education, the system is designed around process, not profit, and process is not something most business are real good at, believe it or not.
No where is this more clear than at DPS, where business management cannot follow a process to save its life. Far NE Denver, new schools selections and locations, human resource management, these processes are all in disarray at DPS. Guess what, after 20+ years of consulting experience, I know first hand that most business’ processes are in disarray, but in business you have the golden out: profit. You can make sweeping change with little to no process because your stock holders demand a dividend.
In public education, however, the schools are fundamentally owned by the taxpayer, and many of those taxpayers send their most valuable asset, their children, to our schools. There is an implicit contract between the taxpayer and a district’s management team that cooperation will occur when managing the system. That cooperation is nothing any business man has any experience in and, frankly, has little use for.
Now, as for Joel Klein, he was a man who actually seemed to understand this at some level. He was not always good at working with the public, but he understood process and he in large part implemented rigorous process around many of NYC’s public schools. Here in Denver? Well, you know where I’m headed…
You could argue that the founders of the Big Picture Company (Levine and Littke) and the Kipp schools (Levin and Feinberg) are running whole national systems of schools successfully. Although both pairs were educators, they were always outsiders, working against the system. I would love to see Colorado go after a Dennis Littke or Mike Feinberg for Commissioner of Education. Those guys would shake up the status quo.