This is one very fine read. Plus, it won’t take you too long. If you have any interest in reading a piece that dissects a recent positive piece of research on a high profile program training principals in New York City, this what you want to click through to.
More than anything, this gives you a good idea of the gulf between news reporting and analysis. (Wasn’t that what got us into the Irag war?)
So, read this first: On GothamSchools.org, Aaron Pallas takes a close look at the recent report by NYU on The Leadership Academy: Bungled by Design. Yes, it is the same link in the first paragraph.
Then this: Ed Week’s coverage of the report.
Then this: New York Times coverage of the report.
Then this: New York Post coverage of the report.
Finally, I can’t end this post without commenting on the limits of assessing the Aspiring Principals Program primarily on the basis of the state test scores achieved by students (for the elementary/middle schools). The fact that such test scores are often available–although never for students below grade 3!–and are at the center of the city’s accountability system does not justify the decision to exclude virtually every other measure of principal performance that might be relevant.
Thanks for this exercise in analysis vs. reportage, Richard.
One thing I’ve learned is to check in with Aaron Pallas’s blog regularly– he identifies key concerns in a very understandable fashion –like you do, Richard 🙂
I do feel conflicted about a few things, when it comes to the Leadership Academy. I like the *idea* of cultivating and educating leaders of tomorrow. Whether the NYCDOE Leadership Academy actually does that is debatable– and perhaps the central inquiry of the NYU study (which I have not read).
Of course, the Leadership Academy should crow about its accomplishments and successes, but Pallas’s questions offer some reasonable concern about how significant those accomplishments are.
Looking forward to the next installment…