I feel like I see a distinctive line in the world of assistant
principal leadership (not the head principal) between being a productive agent
of change (a.k.a. hitting the LKES marks) or just simply being a person who
helps put the train back on the functionally operational tracks. In my head,
these are 2 very important tasks, and they should be the full responsibility of
different people. Follow me here….I
have a good idea!
In the past, I’ve generally been of the mindset that APs are
in the least useful position in terms of being an agent of change, because I
viewed AP duties as primarily operational and logistical. Now that I am in the
actual position, I see that part of my old thinking was flawed, but I also see
that I was not completely off-base.
On paper, administrators are charged with being instructional leaders (the
LKES), but are all leaders actually good at instructional leadership? Maybe
some leaders are just better at putting out fires and don’t need to be the
instructional boss for a group of teachers? Everyone has a strength. Furthermore,
if there are 4 APs in a building, then 2 should be instructional and 2 should
be operational, with the head principal being the ring leader. This idea makes
total sense to me, because not all APs want to become a head principal. Some are
content with just having an AP role. And that should be allowed!
Perhaps one day (maybe sooner than later) I will get off my
tangent rant of the upside down way I view AP responsibilities; however, that
day is not today. J
I remain pretty frustrated with the current state of separation from reality
that exists between the LKES standards (what is expected) and what goes on from
day to day and what APs are actually capable of achieving. Don’t get me wrong…I
agree with the LKES standards, and I definitely believe these are the things we
should be focusing on; it’s just not
a practical reality for all APs in all buildings. The LKES standards promote
administrators being agents of change, but, at the end of the day, some people
are not actually good at being an agent of change. Why not let those of us who
love instruction focus just on instruction, and let the operational gurus focus
on operations? Why not let us play to our strengths?
The group that presented in class last week (the HR group) talked
about the cost of replacing exiting teachers. This article
talks about the cost of replacing exiting principals ($75 K), and the alarming
trend of leaders who are leaving after less than five years. Just food for
thought, because we talk a lot about teacher turnover, but what about
administration turnover?!? Why is there not a heavier focus on that and what is
causing that? Could it be that leaders are misplaced and not able to play to
their strengths? I think I’m on to something…
Thanks for this Kristin! I think it makes perfect sense but is often not discussed. I have worked with AP/principal teams that work in beautiful harmony because they play off each other's strengths. I have also worked on teams where both leaders were operational gurus and instruction was left in the wind. The charter schools I have worked with had deans of instruction and a separate dean of discipline or students. This worked really well and allowed APs to work in the areas of their strengths and really support teaching and learning. My district also has these titles AP of Instruction and AP of discipline but everyone I know plays both roles. There would always be a little overlap since teaching and learning to hand and hand but being able to focus on one aspect would really be helpful. Maybe it's in the works!
ReplyDeleteDangit....guess I didn't come up with this idea! Sounds like someone already has! :-) But thanks for saying this, because I didn't realize it existed this way anywhere.
DeleteKristin-Good post! I think you make some good points. It is true that some leaders are much better at "putting out fires" and others and others are much more visionary. If you have a leadership team, it makes sense to take advantage of the skills of each individual on the team.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot has to do with who brought who on board. Hopefully a principal can bring on the people who can fill his/her weaknesses and highlight their strengths. I know that is what my former principal tried to do. He was a strong instructional leader and needed people like me who were good with the "social" needs of the staff. The problem here is that the principal must be aware of his/her shortcomings and seek those who can fill in the gaps. I think a collegial team would do exactly what you say - each focus on their strengths to make the school work. However, all to often a new principal inherits a support staff and has to pay close attention to see who has what strength. (Not talking about anyone we know of course!)
ReplyDelete