This all changed after 1988 after the election of a new state government. They introduced what they called “merit selection”, as if the tried and true promotees previously, had no merit. Now there was noi formal, objective, on the job assessment. If you you could write a good enough story about yourself (Curriculum Vitae) you would score an interview. If at the interview you could provide sufficiently glib responses to a set of questions, which varied in depth, and intelligence, sufficient to convince the interview panel, and if your referees concurred, you most likely would be appointed.

This led, not to better leadership in schools, but to a political climate, that did not exist before. If you wish to be promoted now you must not necessarily be competent but you must become a political animal and know all the right political moves to get yourself noticed, and you must become skilled at self advertisement. Nobody cares much if you are a competent teacher or not.

The result is that many principals have very little idea of educational theory, may not necessarily be a competent teacher, climbed the ladder by making the right political moves, and expect everyone else seeking promotion to be the same as they.

After having said all that I must hasten to add that not all principals are incompetent teachers. I have met many respectable and competent principals who support and lead their staff in a most professional manner. My comments are intended for the system which allows incompetent, sleazy, political operators, to climb the ladder, and who then treat with contempt the many fine, competent teachers who choose to remain in the classroom providing solid service for their students and the public.

Schools have earned the brickbats they are subjected to these days. It is a rare sight to see a principal leave his custodial and caretaker duties, and to work with and coach his/her teachers to raise the level of competency within the classroom.

It is common knowledge that most principals in most school districts have observed classrooms infrequently, if at all, and have written inaccurate and misleading evaluations designed to obscure their vigorous inertia.

If we accept that evaluation of students is an ongoing and yearlong process, it necessarily follows that coaching and evaluation of teachers must be a continuous process. We do not upgrade a teacher’s competency by observing a 15 minute teaching act, or two acts, but the principal must work with the teacher within the classroom throughout the year. If it is our objective to make better teachers, then let’s use evaluation to attain its intended purpose and not to just provide the principal with observational comments of dubious merit to be check-rated on a worthless form and filed in the front office closet.

The principal should be one of the best teachers in school. And this eminently qualified principal should work closely and continuously with his teachers in their classrooms to find the best kind of instruction that will make each student want to learn.

Failure to understand his educational role in the process has resulted in education stagnation and the loss of public confidence and support. Since principals have abdicated their real responsibility, is it any wonder that education has lost the respect of large segments of the public.

The real question should be, why do we continue to settle for less?

Abe Feinberg