Cincinnati, OH
Joel Klein’s resignation as Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools, and that of Michelle Rhee in the comparable job in Washington DC, raise interesting and important questions about finding the right balance between the pugilistic determination and patient diplomacy necessary for achieving desperately needed school reform.
Basically, I’ve been a fan of both these leaders – though a guarded one. They’ve been unafraid to confront lethargic, insular, deeply entrenched systems that have been allowed to decay over many decades and, as a result, are doing such a disservice to children so as to represent a clear and present danger to our country. Perhaps the best thing the Kleins and Rhees of the world bring to the task is to question existing orthodoxies and shake-up the status quo, which they can only do with healthy outside perspectives and the backing of a strong mayors such as Bloomberg in New York and, or so we thought, Fenty in DC. They also buoy so many individuals and institutions that had otherwise given up hope that real and lasting reform is even possible in large urban systems.
Those who resist change and argue for gradualism in school reform are just wrong. Gradualism seems like a dilatory tactic by unions, opposing politicians, vendors, and other vested interests designed to slow down if not entirely halt reform. What’s needed instead is what organizational scholars call “punctuated equilibrium,” and lighting rods Klein and Rhee come with very big punctuation marks. That is to say, they enrage many people who stand to lose from rising performance expectations and other interruptions to business as usual.
Angering resistors can be a useful albeit anecdotal indicator of success, since nobody determined to overhaul something as sclerotic and frighteningly political as the New York or Washington systems will ever make friends. Just ask Mayor Fenty who was tossed out of office in his recent re-election bid because he dared to support (one might say, create) Rhee and her reform efforts. It seems logical and even desirable that reform-minded leaders will make some enemies or otherwise risk not being effective on these brutal playing fields. Too much patience and excessive due process risk running out the clock, continually perpetuating systems that like to talk about change but have little authentic interest in doing so. Are Klein and Rhee divisive? Yes, of course. They absolutely must be.
The two outgoing Chancellors are right to have brought a palpable sense of urgency to this seemingly impossible task. If a Taliban (or yesterday’s bogeyman, a Communist) sleeper cell had somehow formed on these shores 40 years ago and conspired to create what we have had in the New York and Washington systems, well, we would be on a war footing right now to address it. It’s that bad.
Having said this, however, Klein and Rhee often took matters too far. Teachers are not the enemy here. Most teachers are good, hard-working folks who are trying to do the best they can and sometimes against all odds. Yes, union intransigence can be a serious impediment to progress, but that doesn’t warrant stereotyping or vilifying teachers. Rhee told a group of us in Washington DC last week that she’s learned some painful lessons in this regard, about the rightness if not the utility of treating people with respect, preserving the dignity of those who must change, communicating and collaborating across the board, and understanding that some inclusion, protocol, and due process are necessary to ensure sustainable change. You don’t have to be nice, but you do have to be smart about these things.
It’s too easy to conflate these qualities and skills with simply “playing nice.” Far from it! An effective leader can be firm and yet reasonable, tough and yet respectful, determined and yet diplomatic enough to not fear communicating and collaborating with some needed measure of inclusion. Otherwise, with little or no “buy in” from those being asked to change, the system will simply reject the “foreign organism” invading it like so many antibodies gathering in reflexive self protection.
One gets the sense from Rhee that she sees matters of inclusion, respect, and dignity as unacceptable forms of gradualism, despite words to the contrary. Instead, I might suggest she see them as the tools needed to achieve and sustain lasting reform. After all, the “body politic” in DC just rejected the Fenty-Rhee “organism,” leaving those of us among her fans to wonder what they will have actually accomplished in the long term. Perhaps another year or two of due diligence and due process would have preserved the Fenty-Rhee program and ensured that it actually succeeded in carrying out large-scale systemic change. Otherwise, what’s the point? Opposition forces can simply wait it out until the flash-in-the-pan, “divisive” leaders impale themselves on the sharp pickets of personal animosity and petty resentments that may never needed to have been so pointed in the first place.
Joel Klein’s resignation as Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools, and that of Michelle Rhee in the comparable job in Washington DC, raise interesting and important questions about finding the right balance between the pugilistic determination and patient diplomacy necessary for achieving desperately needed school reform.
Basically, I’ve been a fan of both these leaders – though a guarded one. They’ve been unafraid to confront lethargic, insular, deeply entrenched systems that have been allowed to decay over many decades and, as a result, are doing such a disservice to children so as to represent a clear and present danger to our country. Perhaps the best thing the Kleins and Rhees of the world bring to the task is to question existing orthodoxies and shake-up the status quo, which they can only do with healthy outside perspectives and the backing of a strong mayors such as Bloomberg in New York and, or so we thought, Fenty in DC. They also buoy so many individuals and institutions that had otherwise given up hope that real and lasting reform is even possible in large urban systems.
Those who resist change and argue for gradualism in school reform are just wrong. Gradualism seems like a dilatory tactic by unions, opposing politicians, vendors, and other vested interests designed to slow down if not entirely halt reform. What’s needed instead is what organizational scholars call “punctuated equilibrium,” and lighting rods Klein and Rhee come with very big punctuation marks. That is to say, they enrage many people who stand to lose from rising performance expectations and other interruptions to business as usual.
Angering resistors can be a useful albeit anecdotal indicator of success, since nobody determined to overhaul something as sclerotic and frighteningly political as the New York or Washington systems will ever make friends. Just ask Mayor Fenty who was tossed out of office in his recent re-election bid because he dared to support (one might say, create) Rhee and her reform efforts. It seems logical and even desirable that reform-minded leaders will make some enemies or otherwise risk not being effective on these brutal playing fields. Too much patience and excessive due process risk running out the clock, continually perpetuating systems that like to talk about change but have little authentic interest in doing so. Are Klein and Rhee divisive? Yes, of course. They absolutely must be.
The two outgoing Chancellors are right to have brought a palpable sense of urgency to this seemingly impossible task. If a Taliban (or yesterday’s bogeyman, a Communist) sleeper cell had somehow formed on these shores 40 years ago and conspired to create what we have had in the New York and Washington systems, well, we would be on a war footing right now to address it. It’s that bad.
Having said this, however, Klein and Rhee often took matters too far. Teachers are not the enemy here. Most teachers are good, hard-working folks who are trying to do the best they can and sometimes against all odds. Yes, union intransigence can be a serious impediment to progress, but that doesn’t warrant stereotyping or vilifying teachers. Rhee told a group of us in Washington DC last week that she’s learned some painful lessons in this regard, about the rightness if not the utility of treating people with respect, preserving the dignity of those who must change, communicating and collaborating across the board, and understanding that some inclusion, protocol, and due process are necessary to ensure sustainable change. You don’t have to be nice, but you do have to be smart about these things.
It’s too easy to conflate these qualities and skills with simply “playing nice.” Far from it! An effective leader can be firm and yet reasonable, tough and yet respectful, determined and yet diplomatic enough to not fear communicating and collaborating with some needed measure of inclusion. Otherwise, with little or no “buy in” from those being asked to change, the system will simply reject the “foreign organism” invading it like so many antibodies gathering in reflexive self protection.
One gets the sense from Rhee that she sees matters of inclusion, respect, and dignity as unacceptable forms of gradualism, despite words to the contrary. Instead, I might suggest she see them as the tools needed to achieve and sustain lasting reform. After all, the “body politic” in DC just rejected the Fenty-Rhee “organism,” leaving those of us among her fans to wonder what they will have actually accomplished in the long term. Perhaps another year or two of due diligence and due process would have preserved the Fenty-Rhee program and ensured that it actually succeeded in carrying out large-scale systemic change. Otherwise, what’s the point? Opposition forces can simply wait it out until the flash-in-the-pan, “divisive” leaders impale themselves on the sharp pickets of personal animosity and petty resentments that may never needed to have been so pointed in the first place.