At EdWize, Leo Casey takes me to task for actively promoting benevolent despotism in education. It's a long post, and as usual, Leo makes a lot of fascinating points, but I can't say that the sentiments he attributes to me are entirely accurate through and through (though he's right that I often lean that way.)

I generally think that benevolent despotism, like it did during the Age of Enlightenment, can play a significant role in the creation of new schools, but it has never made sense to me that putting all faith in school administrators is a wise way to reform schools. I'm much more of a different strokes for different folks dude: that various leadership styles and frameworks work best with various teachers, parents, and students. One thing that I have always appreciated about charter schools is they offer avenues for experimentation with a host of these various styles.

I particularly appreciate Leo's treatment of the issue of self-interest, i.e. administrators are interested in their schools, while teachers are interested in their classrooms and thus, their kids. People in ed reform often shrug off that kind of talk, but I think that as it is an important part of basic human nature it is certainly worth discussing within the context of schooling. (Since charter SCHOOLS are closed down if they fail to perform, it makes sense that charter school administrators would have an interest in running a good school, which as Leo notes can sometimes be bad news for some teachers and some students.)

I absolutely agree with Leo that self-interest matters, which is why rather than giving all power to school administrators, I strongly favor power arrangements (like in the suburbs) that tilt toward parents. I don't think that they should run schools, per se, but why not empower the little guys to fight (and make choices) for their kids? Wouldn't teachers benefit from such an arrangement? (What is good for kids is good for teachers, ainah??)

I also think Leo's discussion about checks and balances would be more real-world if we acknowledged the reality that the market is particularly hot for great teachers right now, creating its own set of checks and balances of sorts. If you have an administrator who doesn't respect you, treats you like a dog, underappreciates your talent, etc. you can either call the UFT and file a bunch of grievances or you can go someplace where you get treated much better or where you feel your contributions will benefit the children who most need them. (This paragraph is probably best understood if you were born after 1965 or so.) Am I suggesting that teachers should turn their backs on the fight to improve individual schools and the working conditions therein? Hell no. But teachers are fully capable of deciding for themselves whether they wish to choose the fight or the flight. (And truth be told, I've always liked and admired the fighters.)

This is also why I think it is so important for parents to act more like consumers, so they can create (steal) their own power to fight for their kids when administrators and teachers unions won't give it up.

Leo has an awful lot there, and as usual, I encourage you to read his lengthy prose. But a couple other random tidbits:

-- If a speech teacher is working with 4-5 kids during a session, like many do, does that no longer count as small group instruction? Wasn't more small-group instruction what taxpayers got when they opened up their checkbooks to the UFT?

-- I understand Leo's argument that the stakes were much more significant for teachers than I was suggesting in my original post (which was based on the article in the labor newspaper The Chief) but now we're supposed to believe that the union filed a formal grievance and took it before an arbitrator to establish a precedent that will now govern precisely what happens and doesn't happen in speech classrooms during the additional negotiated 37.5 minutes that we now provide because... the UFT is waging a war against micro-management????

-- I am also sympathetic to the argument that public education systems often employ absolute jerks who become managers and make life miserable for everyone they encounter and act in ways that hurt teachers and kids, day-in and day-out, and so we have had to build an apparatus over the years that assumes this is the case and provides the kinds of checks-and-balances that make employment somewhat bearable. But isn't that precisely the problem we should be tackling? Don't teachers and kids deserve better? Shouldn't we expect more from public education? Is there any wonder people are losing faith?