Yet another writer who knows what's wrong with schools

.
A recent post on Slate tries to focus a little more attention on a person who has a lot more influence on the quality of a school than teachers: The Principal.

Well, okay, sure.  But this looks like one more fad that won't provide the answers.  Just remember: there is no single culprit in the crime that is American Education.  But certainly, a good principal can do more to influence the quality of a school than all the teachers combined.

What do you think an ambitious teacher getting his or her first appointment in a school wants to do?  Get into the administration.  It's more money, and a lot more opportunity to get away from the drudgery of classroom work, and a lot more power.  So, generally speaking, you can expect a typical principal to be in it for the money.  Teachers who, after many years, are still in the classroom, are probably there because they like to teach, or they prefer to deal with kids than with their parents.  Among teachers and principals alike, parents have a reputation for whining and complaining about their good-for-nothing kids.  Good parents will deal with their kids head on.  Bad parents want the school to deal with their kids.  (If you have kids in school, do not be offended; I'm making broad generalizations, and you may not fall into either category.  If you see yourself in these words, there's nothing to stop you adjusting your behavior: your kids are the legacy you leave the world, not the school's legacy.)

The article correctly identifies the biggest single factor in the quality of the school: whether the school is in a poverty-stricken area, or whether it is in an affluent area.  But the author continues to point at principals as the ones to watch, rather than the economics of the area.  Poor people in America have very little, and education is one of the principal tragedies in the experience of the poor.

The turnover rate of teachers in poor schools is high.  But guess what: the turnover rate of principals in poor school districts is also high. Teachers and principals are not more mercenary than anybody else.  After a while, the salary provided by a school in a marginal school district will no longer serve to support the family of an educated man or woman.  (Pay attention: the wealthy are greater consumers of everything than the Middle Class, and members of the Middle Class are greater consumers of all sorts of resources than the indigent.  I keep saying that the wealthy are in a better position to avail themselves of resources such as airports and harbors and highways to remote resorts (at least partly built at public expense) than the masses.  If a tollbooth were set up, say, on a highway through Grand Teton State Park, and every vehicle was required to report the entire gross income of its occupants for the previous year, I daresay it would be far greater than that of a typical traveler on, say, I 80.  The wealthy use more of the people's resources, which is why they should pay more taxes.)

The second major factor contributing to the ineffectiveness of American education is simply this: because of the materialistic nature of our society, education is a means to the end of a higher paycheck.  No one is valued simply for their erudition.  The educated person is not held in high regard unless he or she is very well employed.

Should an educated person be held in higher regard than one who is not, other things being equal?  In America, no, because poverty can be an obstacle to education.  In a country where education is free, yes; a person who scorns the opportunity to learn has to earn our pity.  It is fashionable for demagogues to profess scorn for education, but it is education that could lead us out of this cycle of viciousness and destruction, this illogic that passes for cleverness in today's society.  Public spokespersons everywhere: TV anchors, political leaders, heads of corporations, all arouse embarrassment and pity in our hearts.  We can't just give up, of course, but it certainly would be a lot easier if our fellow-citizens really knew what they were talking about.

No, principals alone can't fix education, but they certainly have the power to push in the right direction.  Teachers can't fix education, and it does not help to start witch-hunts to discover the 'bad' ones.  But uninterested teachers must certainly be discouraged from taking up the profession.  Politicians alone cannot fix education, but they can certainly make the problems of education a million times worse by indulging their instincts for opportunism.  Parents certainly can help improve education, just by educating their own children better.  But parents on their own can't fix the entire problem.  I can't see a solution, but making Principals the scapegoats is certainly not going to fix the problem.  To be honest, the writer of the piece in question was not doing that; it was just a suggestion that it was as well to ensure that we appoint principals of the right quality.  We're all desperate for solutions, and this is probably a reasonable response to the situation.

Arch, exhausted