THB, Banditos, Wayward and more confirmed for Cosmic Cocktail!

Big city school chiefs compare notes

THE BALTIMORE SUN

With only a few weeks left in his term as one of America's big-city school superintendents, Milwaukee's Howard L. Fuller is watching a dream slip from his grasp.

Just this month, he was hailed by Business Week as an innovative reformer. By June, he'll be unemployed, finishing his meteoric rise and fall in the high-stakes, high-risk job of educating America's children. He lasted longer than many urban school superintendents: four years.

"By the time you get to the point you understand what needs to be done and understand how it might be done, your time's up," Mr. Fuller says, summing up the shared anxieties of the nation's urban school superintendents.

About 50 current and former school chiefs are at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Baltimore this weekend for a forum of the Large City Schools Superintendents.

The meeting offers a chance to compare school-reform strategies, tap the expertise of researchers and commiserate with peers about the toll exacted by their jobs. Far from the scrutiny of their school boards, unions and PTAs, they lean on each other for advice and support.

Here's their view through the revolving door: Nationally, the average stay of a big-city superintendent is about 2 1/2 years -- just until elections, controversy, burnout or a better job comes along. By comparison, the average of tenure for superintendents nationwide is about 6 1/2 years, and has been increasing slowly, according to education groups.

If Baltimore Superintendent Walter G. Amprey serves out his contract, good through 1998 -- for seven years on the job -- he would tie the longest tenure of any school chief in the city in at least 35 years.

In Baltimore and several other cities, superintendents are staying much longer than they did in the 1960s. In many other urban areas, however, quick turnover has become the norm.

And the impact on schools is clear. Longer stays are not always better, but the high turnover hurts cities' abilities to retool school bureaucracies, launch education reforms and stay the course.

Meanwhile, there are signs that pressures contributing to the turnover are helping to reshape the modern superintendency. The profile of the typical candidate is changing.

The type of training available is changing, too. But whether this will improve superintendents' staying power remains to be seen.

"You can either do the job or keep the job . . . or both," says Robert Peterkin, a former Milwaukee school chief who is director of Harvard University's 5-year-old urban superintendents doctoral program. He attributes the wry saying to a colleague's view of the competing economic, social and political influences on education decisions.

Demographics help tell the story. Of the nation's 42 million public school students, big cities serve about 13.5 percent. But they include 22 percent of the poor and 36 percent of the limited-English speakers, according to a 1992-1993 study by the national Council of Large City Schools. More than 50 percent of big-city students are eligible for federally subsidized reduced-price and free lunches based on family need.

Add the cities' shrinking tax bases, high crime and competition with private schools for the children of the middle class. Add spending cuts. Add unions and racially divided communities.

It's a recipe for trouble. The problem, many superintendents and their mentors say, is that education decisions often protect adults' interests, not children's.

"Never once did I make a decision where the pressures put on me were to do the right thing for the children," said Paul Houston, a former superintendent and now president of the American Association of School Administrators. "You were making choices between who is going to get hurt the least; it's debilitating. There's a survivor's and scapegoat's mentality out there."

Reform means championing change, and change means trampling someone's turf, no matter how carefully consensus is sought.

Before taking the helm in Milwaukee, Mr. Fuller was an outspoken critic of the school system. Afterward, he proposed radical reforms. As he reflects on his waning tenure, his passion has not been tempered.

"We are looking at a hip-hop generation with a waltz mentality," he said from his office in Milwaukee. "You can't force this generation into an organizational form that was created in another era."

Announcing his resignation, he said he was leaving because he was "uncertain about the depth of board support." Four of five candidates supported by the teachers union had won seats on the nine-member school board in March.

He had clashed with the union over his ideas, including his support for reorganizing schools and his interest in hiring for-profit Education Alternatives Inc. to help run some city schools. Eventually, the district decided that union contracts and other factors would not make privatization feasible.

Alienating interest groups, misreading the winds of political change, promising improvement so drastic that it can't be delivered -- these are among the major pitfalls, said Franklin L. Smith, superintendent in the nation's capital.

The demise of many big-city superintendents often has less to do with their educational competence than with their ability to manage in such a high-pressure environment, he said.

"The tenure of big-city superintendents is so short that they tend to come in the first year attempting to make big changes because they know that by the second year, they are going to be evaluated -- and they may be gone," he said. "And that's a mistake." Sweeping the slate clean can backfire because valuable insider knowledge of the school system is lost. Programs that had been launched as reforms aren't followed up. Recordkeeping methods change. Kids become over looked.

Many believe the only progress will come for big-city school systems with strategic, long-range planning -- not shopping for more short-term managers.

Like a business plan, but generated by a coalition of teachers, parents, students, interest groups and policy-makers, the strategic guidelines should outlast superintendents.

"Don't get me wrong. I want to stay in this job -- I'm not saying get rid of superintendents -- I'm saying communities are going to have to come together to develop long-range plans that hold up no matter who is in charge," said Mr. Smith. "That's what would be best for the community and for the children."

Meanwhile, the profile of the typical superintendent is changing.

The nation's superintendents are mostly white men in their 50s who rose through the education ranks as expected in their generation -- they were teachers, then principals, then administrators. Almost half coached athletics while they were teachers.

They needed to know about budgeting, but not microeconomics. They may not have grown up computer literate. They often did not come from urban areas.

Mr. Peterkin's program and a few others like it have created internships to train aspiring administrators in the realities of the modern superintendency. Interns are put in the hot seat -- immersed in methods of unraveling research and statistics, which can stymie even experienced superintendents.

The candidates often have backgrounds in social services and community activism, as well as in classrooms. Many are African-American and Hispanic. Many are women. Coaching experience is not a norm, but leadership ability and intellectual acumen are required.

And still, they'll have a lot more to learn, in forums such as the one in Baltimore this week, said Norbert Schuerman, Omaha, Neb.'s, superintendent and, in his 12th year in his job, the "dean" of America's big-city school chiefs.

They need to learn the delicate art of diplomacy, of keeping personal differences out of the media, of showing "proper

deference" to the school board members who are their bosses, he said. They'll need to learn, he said, that "reform and restructuring and innovation are nice words but one must be careful not to just jump on the bandwagon because something is new."

Because of the shock that comes with adopting a public life, they also must develop ways to leave their worries at the office, for the sake of their sanity and their families.

"From a leadership standpoint, one needs to develop a tough psyche that can deal with the phenomenon of never being right," Mr. Schuerman said. "That's not an exaggeration."

SCHOOL CHIEFS

Baltimore superintendents 1960-1995

George B. Brain 1960-'64

Edwin Stein * 1964-'65

Laurence G. Paquin 1965-'67

Thomas Goedecke * 1967-'68

Thomas D. Sheldon 1968-'71

Sterling S. Keyes * 1971

Roland N. Patterson 1971-'75

John L. Crew Sr. 1975-'82

Alice G. Pinderhughes 1982-'88

Richard C. Hunter 1988-'91

Walter G. Amprey 1991-

* Acting

SOURCE: "The Lessons of Change, Baltimore Schools in the Modern Era," by Mike Bowler.

Copyright © 2019, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad
46°