Never late in “88 and other ideas that failed

When I became a principal I believed it was important to listen to ideas from the teachers I supervised. I also held the belief that support staff knew much more about the school building and community than I did. Part of these beliefs came from my experience as a teacher when I was supervised by administrators that did not share this belief. Part comes from my upbringing that taught me that everyone has value and knowledge.

For my career, these beliefs sustained me and led to ever improving schools. My first thought was always to trust suggestions as emanating from those closest to the issue. Only after failing to see positive results did I begin to question the suggestions of certain staff members.

This post is about the failures, not the successes. It is about the lessons I learned the hard way. They are why I am wiser today than I was that first day in 1981 when I added the title “Principal” to my name.

The first failure began as a way to make students be “more responsible”. In Saybrook-Arrowmsith, with only eighty-four (84) high school students, most were involved in extracurricular activities that were managed by the Illinois High School Association.

IHSA required that students maintain eligibility. This was defined as passing a certain number of courses each semester. The standard method to check eligibility was for the athletic director to circulate a weekly list of participants and ask the teachers to indicate which students were not passing.  It was a relatively simple process, and the focus was on those not passing.

The idea offered to me by one of the coaches was to have all students carry an eligibility card to each class on Friday. The teachers would then be asked to initial for each student if they were passing. In other words, every student had to check their own eligibility in every course each week. We printed the cards, explained to the students, and began the process.

Teachers complied, as did the students. If the teacher forgot to ask, the students knew to inquire because to return a card with any unsigned slots meant sitting out for a week. It was a time consuming affair that was destined to fail.

Sometime that spring, we heard the rumor that students were forging teachers’ initials. It probably started when a teacher forgot to ask for the cards, and the students forgot to remind the teacher. I don’t know how long it went on before I began to investigate.

Caught in this forging event were some students who were heavily involved in activities and with really good behavior. I will never forget the meeting with one student and her mother when I explained that she was going to be suspended for her part in the “forgery”. The mother did not defend her actions, or disagree with the punishment. She said “I understand what you have to do, but I know my daughter to be a person of good character.”  I agreed with her.

The problem was the focus was on the wrong group. We created a situation so involved in unnecessary paperwork and time, that it failed the very people that were passing all of their courses. I would make this mistake again, but I was beginning to understand that every idea needed to be examined and questions asked about it before proceeding.

My next big mistake was “Never Late in ‘88”. In 1987, after hearing concerns from teachers, I identified a problem with students arriving late to school (tardy). I asked for suggestions. The typically positive Irving staff said we should reward those who are in school on time. It was suggested we give each student a ticket every morning and have them write their name on the ticket. Teachers collected the tickets and returned them to the office with their attendance. Students arriving late would not get a ticket. On Friday, we would have a prize drawing and select student tickets for rewards. Each grade level would have a drawing.

To make the process more positive, the drawing was to be done over the intercom and the names announced for the whole school. I requested the PTO board purchase the prizes and handle the drawing. They consented and appropriated money for some nice prizes.

It all began in January. This was a good time, because the data indicated January and February were the months with the most number of students arriving late to school. We were losing class time doing all of this, but it was all so positive, there wasn’t any complaining. The initial drawings were met with excitement and the teachers, students, and PTO  were very pleased.

All of this time, I was checking the tardy reports. The number of tardies recorded in February went up from the prior year. When I presented the data to the teachers, the first reaction was to question the data. I was to find that questioning the data is often a first reaction to information which disputes a belief. 

The data was not the problem. The problem, as in S-A, was the program was focused on the wrong students. The students who were arriving on time did not need an incentive. The students who were arriving late were not sufficiently motivated by the chance to win a reward.

My new analysis of the data, found that twenty (20) students had 90% of the late arrivals. I decided to stop the program, and focus on them. They got a simple warning, arrive late, and you will stay after school that day to make up the time. Their parents were informed of this.

The data confirmed the effectiveness. The number of late arrivals dropped dramatically. Lesson learned by the staff and me. Focus on the issue, not the entire student population.

Another staff idea came to me as a result of teacher contract negotiations. There was actually a proposal to have the principals replaced by a committee of teachers who would make decisions. Although this didn’t occur, the staff did think they could make many decisions which were my responsibility. They approached me and asked if I would consent to let them try.

This time, I knew there were going to be issues, but I agreed to give them an administrative issue to solve. The problem I chose was the staff parking lot.

Irving had over fifty (50) staff members. Most were full time, but a few moved between buildings, usually on very tight schedules. For these teachers, hunting for a place to park was not figured in their schedule.

There had been a tradition at Irving that staff parking spaces belonged to the most senior staff members. They had a numbered space, while the rest of staff, and parents had to park on the street. With only twenty seven (27) spaces in the lot, the streets were always full of cars.

The tradition was to block in anyone in “your” space, effectively punishing them for using “your” space. After having to pull teachers out of class so that a parent or itinerant teacher could leave I decided to change the rules.  I eliminated the seniority assignments and said all spaces would be on first come first serve. Senior staff were not pleased.

I gave the problem to the “committee”. They worked on it for several weeks. They met with me and asked that I take the problem back. They couldn’t find a solution.

What lessons did I learn from all of this? First, is that staff often have the best ideas for solving issues and improving the school. In a supportive environment, they will generate many good ideas. Second, the principal cannot give away responsibility without asking many questions about the idea. “How does this focus on the problem and not the entire student population?” is perhaps the most important.

The last lesson is that principals as administrators sometimes have to make difficult decisions. These may not be popular, but bring the focus back to what is important and not traditional. Unpopular decisions are not fun, but they are part of the job of the leader. More importantly, staff members respect a leader who will make the tough call.