Rethinking the role of the district curriculum leader

I was a terrible customer when I was a superintendent. Vendors from curriculum and technology companies would try to set meetings with me. Retired superintendents, who companies had hired for their rolodexes, would take me to lunch, never to sell me something of course, just to talk and get my insight. At conferences, I would roll my eyes at the five-minute pitches from the sponsors. Not only did I not trust those who were seeking to profit from public schools, I also mistakenly believed that the educators in district offices and schools had more expertise than the private companies. Kind of like how I thought that teachers, maybe with some help from folks in the district testing office, could design assessments just as well as the psychometricians in the private sector.

I wasn’t all wrong. Products vary in their quality, and promises of effectiveness often leave out how to implement the solution to get the most out of it. Plus, as I’ve said many times in these pages, those who are closest to the problem should be charged with solving it and supported in doing so.

But when I left public school districts and entered the nonprofit world, my perspective changed. I got to know well-meaning and earnest solution providers, many of whom had come directly from schools where they had, in fact, solved problems and were now bringing these solutions to market. I learned that both nonprofits and private companies have vastly more research and development resources than school districts and that their survival depends on their ability to improve curriculum, assessment, technology, and intervention services, which is a powerful motivator. I wouldn’t have joined a private company if I hadn’t learned so much during my time at PDK about how valuable external resources should and can be for thoughtful school and system leaders. And I’ve made a 180-degree shift in how I think school system leaders could strike a balance between internal and external expertise.

I can’t imagine I’ll ever be a superintendent of schools again, but if I were to step back into the arena, I’d significantly transform much of the central office curriculum and instruction department. (I say this with all humility and recognition that from my current outside perch I can promise just about anything, but let’s play along for argument’s sake.) In my view, the central office should exist for the purposes of resource allocation, public engagement, compliance and accountability, and most important, support of building-level leaders. The central office is not necessarily where decisions about content and pedagogy should be made.

Many system leaders, even as they move further from the classroom and the day-to-day life of schools, retain a mental model about how schools and the system should work. This vision leads them to consolidate their power and expertise at the system level. After all, what does a system leader have other than the supposed knowledge and skills that got them where they are? Of course they’ll want to maintain the structure that got them to that place. We see this dynamic at work when leaders take on someone else’s responsibilities because they believe they have more expertise and can do it faster. They may not even know that someone working for them has a skill set and desire to take on more responsibility.

One of my guiding principles is that leaders should do the work that only they can do. If system leaders were to focus on only the work that they can do, and not what others could do — perhaps more effectively — I believe they’d get better results.

Work only leaders can do

Supporting principals. Only system leaders can provide necessary supports to principals. In today’s environment, recruiting, developing, and supporting principals has become more important than ever. Yet, as we know from the work of the Wallace Foundation and others, supervisors often oversee too many principals (Goldring et al., 2020). Reallocating content-related positions in central offices to principal support positions can accelerate this key improvement strategy.

Compliance and accountability. Like it or not, public education is heavily regulated. Spending, labor contracts, programmatic requirements for special populations, state and federal statutes, and safety and environmental considerations, among others, are all subject to rules and regulations. Measuring progress and holding schools accountable are essential to school system transformation. Many school systems aren’t able to move very quickly in the face of changing circumstances. A central office needs to create an environment where school leaders are supported to act and adjust to achieve their vision according to what they see on the ground and what works for their school community, in alignment with mandates from above.

Strategic communication. The more a community is engaged with system leaders and understand why they’re making certain moves, the more likely they will be to offer their support. Elected officials, the business community, nonprofit and religious leaders, and families are all essential stakeholders. Leaders also need solid relationships with internal constituencies. They must give time and attention to outreach efforts that serve the most vulnerable students and families. Moreover, the need to communicate regularly, using multiple mediums, has escalated. The superintendent also needs to know where the opposition is coming from and create a strategy to counteract it. All of this requires resources and a deliberate strategy. Too many school systems don’t have the resources they need to communicate with, and effectively engage, the public. And, it’s a job that only system leaders can do.

Resource allocation. Perhaps the most important job of a system leader is to allocate resources according to vision and need. Funding, time, and people must be distributed so that the schools that need the most help get it and the community’s vision for its students can be realized. When creating a budget, recommending policies to the school board, and negotiating with labor unions about the distribution of talent and the allocation of time, resources grease the wheels of system transformation. Systems need to be put in place to ensure that resources are allocated in a way that aligns with the district strategy. If the district is committed to collaborative professional learning to improve teacher practice, someone has to set up a schedule with room for professional learning communities (PLCs) and make sure they have the right leaders. If increasing access to Advanced Placement classes is a priority, someone has to help schools support students and teachers and keep track of the data. System leaders play a vital role reviewing school strategies and key performance indicators and helping schools adjust accordingly.

Work others can do

There’s some work system leaders do that could be done by others, mainly administrators, teacher leaders, and other school-based leaders. Decisions about what to teach and how to teach it should be made at the school level, within nonnegotiable frameworks determined in concert with educators at all levels. Teacher leaders should have release time to work with their colleagues across schools to identify appropriate materials, align curriculum to standards, and ensure consistent assessments. The roles of coaches, content leaders, team leaders, and department heads should be bulked up to give them more formal authority to create an instructional environment that addresses the needs within their school, following whatever district framework is in place.

To give more time and responsibility to leaders on the ground, central office curriculum and program positions can be reduced and the money redistributed to establish 12-month teacher leader positions with a reduced instructional load. Those in these positions could serve as co-teachers, coaches, and PLC facilitators. Ideally, they’d be able to evaluate other teachers and visit different schools to provide feedback and learn from peers. During the summers, they’d work with their colleagues across the system to normalize practices where appropriate, review district data, and recommend adjustments. Decisions about outside partners, materials, programs, and services would be made based on the needs those closest to the work have identified, within a framework established by system leaders to ensure efficiency, compliance, and alignment with district and state standards.

Making the shift

There is likely not a one-to-one swap for central office positions and the needed increase in school-based leadership positions. But, if you establish a three-year plan for phasing in school-based leadership as you phase out some district roles, the time and funding required to purchase better products, pay for professional learning, and bolster school staffing would gradually become available. During this time, district offices would need to be redesigned around new functions, school schedules would need to change, and job descriptions renegotiated. But, if done thoughtfully, this new approach would give schools the much-needed leadership essential to improvement, while ensuring that the solutions determined at the central office are up-to-date and effective. Perhaps most important, power would be distributed to where it belongs the most and will likely do the most good — closest to the problem.

One of the canards that’s always bothered me in the discourse about public education is that school systems should operate more like a business. When all I knew was public school life, I fully rejected that notion. And now that I’ve been in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors for a few years, I’m still annoyed at the accusatory nature of how that notion is used. At the same time, I’ve learned an enormous amount about how business expertise can be leveraged to support school improvement.

System leaders must take a hard look at where the expertise exists within their districts and how they can make the best use of it. What is the work that only they can do, and what work would be better handled by someone else? Whether they are identifying the most effective solutions from outside the district or investing in leadership at the ground level, system leaders have an obligation to put the leadership and power where it belongs.

Reference

Goldring, E.B., Clear, M.A., Rubin, M., Rogers, L.K., Grissom, J.A., Gill, B., . . . & Burnett, A. (2020). Changing the principal supervisor role to better support principals. Wallace Foundation.

---

This article appears in the May  2023 issue of Kappan, Vol. 104, No. 8, pp. 56-57.