The Mike Munchak model of school leadership

I've got a radical idea for improving schools. On paper, it won't cost more money. A bunch of schools are already doing it. Also, pretty much every other industry does this some form or fashion. So, as I said, radical by the standards of education policy. Here it is: District superintendents should allow principals to choose their staffs.

We in Nashville are watching an example of how this could work right now. After a crappy season, Titans coach Mike Munchak is "reorganizing" his staff. That is, he's firing some people and hiring others. Several coaches were given no more explanation than "the team is going in a different direction." Among these is longtime special teams coach Alan Lowry, best known as the architect of the most famous play in team history, the Music City Miracle. It's not like Lowry forgot how to coach football this year. But his contract had expired and observers speculate that the special teams unit needed shaking up.

This never gets old.

Tennessean sports columnist David Climer criticized Munchak's moves, but then wrote the following:

While some of Munchak’s decisions may seem odd, let’s be clear: Considering his situation, he must be given complete freedom to adjust his coaching staff in whatever way he sees fit. His job is on the line, so he must be allowed to win or lose with the assistants of his choice. If he thinks he can upgrade his staff, so be it.

(Emphasis mine)

So why does a football coach get the freedom to choose a staff, but many schools refuse to let their principals do the same? 

Back in my Philly days, I asked that question to a colleague. She looked at me as if I'd grown a third eye. "What would happen if a principal came in here and just cleaned house?" she asked, expecting that the answer was self-evident. 

Except that the particular school where I worked had been failing by every possible measure. We had the educational equivalent of a 2-14 season. If ever there was a school that was fit for a Indianapolis Colts-style makeover, this was it.

Of course, school district management being what it is, the district fired the previous administration while staff stayed (unless they decided to leave of their own volition).

This worked wonders in undermining most of the authority any administration would've had. Teachers could do the same thing they'd always done (admittedly a good thing in a few cases, but a recipe for repeating failure in most others). Whether a teacher was competent or not, none of us had reason to treat the new administration as anything other than the next group through the revolving door. I think I talked the principal five times during the entire year.

Now I work in a charter school. If she wants, the principal can fire me. Is that likely to happen? No. There are lots of good reasons why principals, even ones who were new to a school, wouldn't want to fire the staff en masse. The point is that a school leader should get to choose of who works for them. There's quite a difference between saying that something would be a bad idea -- like firing an entire staff -- versus prohibiting someone from doing it. That difference is trust. And if a superintendent doesn't trust a principal, then why is that person allowed to lead a school?

(I can see the eye-rolling from veteran teachers regarding that last point. Bear with me -- I'm talking about how things should be.)

I know that there are some terrible principals out there. (In my stint there, I learned the hard way that the School District of Philadelphia was notorious for hiring them.) The solution for hiring poor principals, though, isn't to make sure that they're powerless to change much of anything. That sort of arrangement can (and does) repel a whole lot of competent candidates. 

As for what to do with bad principals? Hold them as accountable as, say, the typical NFL coach. If the Titans don't go the playoffs next year, everybody expects owner Bud Adams to fire Munchak. The same idea should be applied to principals. If they don't get results, replace them.

Staff turnover is commonplace in other industries, particularly those were leadership is so closely aligned to performance. Indeed, school superintendents are held accountable for results even when they don't influence student achievement nearly as much as principals and teachers.

We understand the principle of giving freedom to lead in exchange for accountability when it applies to sports. Why doesn't it seem to apply to so many of our schools?