Do MT schools need change?

Among several potential candidates for Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction in the next election is Sharyl Allen, who works as an assistant to Elsie Arntzen, current OPI chief. Allen is in the news because her work history is a bit sketchy; apparently she has left more than one contract uncompleted in more than one state.

Allen’s supporters call her such things as innovative and creative, while others from teaching staff to board members just can’t get along with her. My point here is not to evaluate Allen’s candidacy, but rather to point out that there are actually several education-related stories within this bit of news.

First story: Allen’s “mobile” work history, however it is perceived, is nothing new within the ranks of school administration. It seems there are always a few who, whether because of personality clashes, program motives, career moves or (occasionally) ethical failings, bounce around in administration without being able to fit with any particular district for any length of time. But schools are a people business above all else. Thus they will always have conflict just below the surface, and if an amiable -- or at least respectful -- relationship between trustees, teachers, administration and parents can’t be floated over that surface, nothing else is going to work for long. A superintendent may or may not be at fault when things go south, but either way, he/she will certainly be a scapegoat.

Second story: Allen left the Conrad, Montana, school district because of disagreement over an individualized learning program which she implemented there. The program was apparently sold to the district, and to Allen, as the latest new thing in education, but it was a student-performance disaster, at least in Conrad.

Funny thing. I started teaching under a “new,” almost-individualized scheduling program over 50 years ago. It didn’t work then, either. I left after one year. Next year, that district had to shut down mid-year to get itself shaken back into more traditional shape.

The real story here is that there is nothing new in education, but rather there are ideas that are new to a particular person, who then wraps them in new ribbon and, whether through university courses or through the markets (there’s big money involved) sells them to young teachers, idealistic administrators, confused school trustees and puzzled parents. My guess (and it’s only a guess) is that Allen, perhaps naively, bet an administrative career on this latest individualized program idea but didn’t have the hard classroom experience needed to understand what really happens to student performance when there are no universal, core expectations. It ain’t pretty.

Third story: You can’t just drop new programs on top of existing practices. Before anything starts, there has to be believable academic data showing why the district needs change. Developing such data takes time and by itself is a hard sell, because educational testing is the scholarly version of snake-hunting in the Everglades. Once in a while you catch a 20-footer, but you can as easily catch nothing, or you might get eaten whole. And that’s not even considering that the testing industry is also a big-money, vested-interest deal. It doesn’t like change either.

Change is difficult any time, anywhere. Explaining this in such a way that a general buy-in occurs is tough, since even the person(s) driving it can seldom guarantee the right results. There’s more hope than certainty involved. Without believable data, it’s hopeless.

If Allen becomes OPI chief, it will be interesting to see how her tenure proceeds. Do Montana schools need change? Will there be academic improvement statewide? Controversy? Politics over education?

Stay tuned.

Ron Rude,

Plains