Teaching without principals: gimmick or sign of the times?

Teaching without principals: gimmick or sign of the times?

A commonly heard complaint about public education is that far too much money is spent on administration.

Now, a charter school in the Detroit public school system is the latest of a few to take a new tack in cuttting administration costs: It will be a school without a principal. Teachers will be running the school and making all the important decisions at Barbara Jordan Elementary.

Parents of students attending the school must agree to the novel approach or send their progeny to another public school building.

There’s no question that modern school districts spend a lot of money on principals, assistant principals and various central office administrators who oversee the principals. But we’re going to have to wait to see what happens in Detroit (and Boston, Milwaukee, Denver and Los Angeles, where other teacher-led schools have opened) before signing on.

Two quick takes

It’s easy enough to come up with catchy phrases to describe these experiments from a teacher’s perspective — we’re cutting out the middleman — and an administrator’s view — even a good team needs a good coach.

But there is very little in the complicated process of educating children today that can be reduced to a phrase or two — especially in urban schools where some children face challenges outside the classroom that suburban students couldn’t even imagine.

An extraordinary group of teachers could no doubt work without direct supervision. Peer pressure can be a more powerful force than the single hand of a boss. But only if a majority of the peers shares a vision for success and a commitment to excellence.

Every school district that is looking for ways to improve student performance and rein in costs should be watching closely these and other experiments in education.