By George Manthey
My high school English teacher, Helen Meyers, introduced me to the wonderful Charles Dickens novel, A Tale of Two Cities. Ms. Meyers said the opening line of this book was, in her opinion, possibly the best that has ever been written. She also insisted that we never emulate it in any of our writing. “It’s so good it’s become a cliché,” I can hear her saying. Too bad, because it’s the perfect opening line when considering the effect of federal influence on California’s educational system – our task in this issue of Leadership.
The history lesson provided for you by EdSource in this issue provides the critical details of federal influence. From my perspective as a pre-NCLB principal, ESEA and Title 1 felt like a very good thing. It provided dollars for us to serve students in positive ways. But the fact that not enough identified Title 1 students were “getting better” is what led to NCLB – and its very prescriptive methods and systems of accountability.
In just a word or two, I think we thought of pre-1992 ESEA as “assistance,” whereas the first word that comes to mind with NCLB is “mandate.” Of course, we could have refused the funds (I know; not in all cases), but we believed the mandates were worth the support.
And now we are about to experience the offspring of NCLB. We’re not sure what it will look like; we’re anxious to start counting the fingers and toes. But we’re told that the Race to the Top program provides some very good clues. This is what I find most fascinating. We bought into NCLB because we liked much of it, had high hopes for the rest, and needed the financial support (OK, because we had to), but we are racing into Race to the Top mostly because we need the money.
What’s really amazing is that we are willing to make major reforms in our assessment system – in the ways we evaluate and place teachers and principals, in our content standards, in the elimination of district boundaries for 10 percent of our schools – all for the hope of money, not for the dollars themselves. Most of the reforms in California’s Race to the Top-related legislation that was passed in January apply whether or not we receive Race to the Top dollars, whether or not your district signed the letter of agreement, and whether or not you are doing an excellent, poor or average job of meeting your responsibilities as a school leader. This is a major shift.
If it sounds like I’m whining about this please know I’m not. I’m jealous. I wish I could get such action at the bargaining table, in my department, or even at home by just waving money around without having to actually deliver it.
We have become dependent on federal support of education. Much of this federal influence has helped us to focus more clearly on our most needy students. Our need of federal support is likely to build rather than decrease in the next few years. Our task as leaders and citizens is to make sure the best people are making the decisions. That’s an incredible responsibility.
Vulnerability and powerful leadership
As a young adult I had what I thought was an original insight – that my greatest strengths were also where I was the most vulnerable. It took me a number of years to figure out I had Charles Dickens and Helen Meyers to thank for leading me to this understanding. There are many ways that federal influence on education is a great strength; it has also made us very vulnerable. Luckily, vulnerability has been identified as one of the most important traits of powerful leadership. That leads me to the lyrics of a song from the musical Lost Horizon:
The world is a circle without a beginning,
and nobody knows where it really ends.
Everything depends on where you
are in the circle that’s spinning around.
Half of the time we are upside down.
George Manthey is ACSA assistant executive director for Educational Services.