New study: Highest poverty Philly schools also have least experienced principals

**Daisyjoe** · 04-26-2012, 10:42 AM

As if high poverty schools don't have enough challenges...A new study by Action United has dug into recent SDP data and revealed a big inequity in principal experience at high vs. low poverty schools in Philadelphia. On average, principals at high poverty schools in the District have significantly less experience and have been in their current positions significantly less time than their counterparts at Philadelphia's lowest poverty public schools. This year, 35% of our highest poverty schools had a new principal, as opposed to 15% of new faces among the principals at schools with low poverty rates. Action United, and Education Voters PA which also just issued a report on strengthening the role of principals in our schools, are starting to work with the District on recommendations to equalize these disparities and give Philly public school principals more of what they need to succeed. Now that the District plans to give individual schools more autonomy, strong principals are going to be more important than ever. Kristen Graham wrote a good story in the Inky on the reports this week:
At high-poverty schools, lack of stability starts at the top

**seand** · 04-26-2012, 10:55 AM

It would seem that having the autonomy to set your own course at a school, rather than having to adapt to a brand new flavor-of-the-month organizational scheme from the SDP every two years or so, would tend to attract candidates for principal who are more interested in putting down roots and setting up programs which aim for lasting results.

**Naveen** · 04-26-2012, 02:05 PM

Action United recommended assigning the most-experienced principals to the toughest schools, giving parents and teachers a say in principal hiring, and evaluating principals on their ability to hire and retain strong staff.

Wouldn't this just drive many of the most-experienced principals out of the district? And should the schools in higher-income areas then get the least or less-experienced principals? Wouldn't that just drive those kids (via their parents) out of the public system (and maybe out of the district)?

**annie** · 04-26-2012, 02:18 PM

The higher-income (less poor, really) schools will have no problem attracting quality principals and their strong HSAs usually play a lead role in the selection process anyway. Also, those schools have a ton less turnover.

The system as it is set up now is that principals advance and get assigned all too frequently based their connections and ability to kowtow rather than lead a school. Also, ahem, suspiciously rapid "results" get rewarded.

The autonomy thing might work in the way Sean describes but only if principals are allowed the space and time necessary (3 years seems to be the consensus minimum). A principal at a "raise your test scores in a year or else" school might be hard pressed to take on meaningful initiatives that will really work but take a couple years to get there.

**FKD19124** · 05-19-2012, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by annie

The higher-income (less poor, really) schools will have no problem attracting quality principals and their strong HSAs usually play a lead role in the selection process anyway. Also, those schools have a ton less turnover.

most dont I think. Blaine elementary in strawberry mansion I think had no say and got a inexperienced principal who sucks and is driving away quality teachers.
The previous principal was experienced and really turned the school around. He left after 3 years and things fell apart quickly. I really do think you need an experienced
principal in these schools in low income areas just because many of the students come from homes where education is not valued and/or the parents just drop the kids off so
they can go do drugs or whatever else.

The system as it is set up now is that principals advance and get assigned all too frequently based their connections and ability to kowtow rather than lead a school. Also, ahem, suspiciously rapid "results" get rewarded.

true.

**eldondre** · 05-19-2012, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by seand

It would seem that having the autonomy to set your own course at a school, rather than having to adapt to a brand new flavor-of-the-month organizational scheme from the SDP every two years or so, would tend to attract candidates for principal who are more interested in putting down roots and setting up programs which aim for lasting results.

In my experience with people who workedt hese schools they'd leave as soon as seniority allowed. I can't imagine principals would be any different. Autonomy is good but maybe there should be added incentives to taking on a gouged job.

**JackStraw** · 05-20-2012, 02:16 PM

The system as it is set up now is that principals advance and get assigned all too frequently based their connections and ability to kowtow rather than lead a school. Also, ahem, suspiciously rapid "results" get rewarded.

This past year the district replaced experienced principals with inexperienced newbies who are more concerned with silencing anyone who dares to criticize the administration. We have the kids running our school now. All of this has taken place in less than a year. Good students are leaving which is the ultimate goal of the 440 parasites.

**FKD19124** · 05-20-2012, 04:17 PM

yep. sounds like the school my wife teaches at.

Originally Posted by JackStraw

The system as it is set up now is that principals advance and get assigned all too frequently based their connections and ability to kowtow rather than lead a school. Also, ahem, suspiciously rapid "results" get rewarded.

This past year the district replaced experienced principals with inexperienced newbies who are more concerned with silencing anyone who dares to criticize the administration. We have the kids running our school now. All of this has taken place in less than a year. Good students are leaving which is the ultimate goal of the 440 parasites.