Tools for the Principals

During a vigorous debate by the school board this week, it was once again evident why change is so hard in the Los Angeles Unified School District: The district is too often focused on adults. When talking about accountability and how to ensure that good school performance is rewarded and poor performance isn’t, questions were raised about how to protect employees. Supt. Ruben Zacarias promised that employee rights will not be endangered. He also added, to his credit, “You want to talk about rights? This is about children’s rights. They deserve a better education.”

The board, in an encouraging rebuff to union pressure, eventually voted to approve an accountability “framework” that could translate into real consequences for poorly performing schools. But more than a framework will be needed, and the final language should include provisions for enforcement.

The framework’s 13 recommendations, proposed earlier by Zacarias, establish a policy intended to hold principals, teachers and staffs responsible for low academic performance and to reward achievement against great odds. Implementation will provide the real test. The board should not succumb to delays or agree to convoluted wording that ties management’s hands; the superintendent, top administrators and principals should indeed be held accountable but they should also be able to make personnel changes they believe would raise reading and math scores.

The teachers union, determined to protect members whether they are classroom stars or misfits, sought to postpone Tuesday’s vote in another bid to stall a process already delayed too long. But it didn’t work this time. Only one board member, Julie Korenstein, refused to approve the guidelines. She abstained.

Zacarias held his ground amid the arguing. Act today, he demanded, so his team could start to shake up schools that have failed to improve for three straight years on the Stanford 9 test and other indicators. Changes may range from removing a principal and the entire faculty, a practice known as reconstitution, to less draconian steps such as providing assistance for teachers.

Intervention teams of expert principals and teachers should also be part of the superintendent’s arsenal. The district and teachers union agreed to them to help failing schools even before Zacarias became superintendent in 1996. The expert teams are still nonexistent, an inexcusable delay.

The guidelines would restore to principals the authority to pick their own management teams and assign teachers based on school needs. This change is likely to require collective bargaining because teachers won the right to choose their classroom assignments on the basis of seniority in exchange for taking a 10% pay cut several years ago.

The union agreed to accountability language in its last contract, which is currently open to allow the board to approve a 2% bonus on top of 10% raises spread over three years.

Pay increases should be linked to student performance, and the best principals and teachers should be paid more. Teachers should be rewarded for demonstrating expertise in specific skills such as early literacy, phonics instruction and technology.

Expectations have been properly raised. Now it’s time for the schools to begin to deliver. Given the evident voter frustration, it’s more politically dangerous now for the LAUSD to remain mired in the status quo.