A comprehensive accountability framework for school administrators requiring classroom teaching, character leadership, and systems thinking.
The School Leadership Excellence Framework
A Comprehensive K-12 Administrative Accountability System
Executive Summary
This framework establishes rigorous standards for educational administrators, school board members, and district leadership. It is built on the foundational principle that character, social-emotional competence, and learning environment precede academic excellence. Leaders cannot hold teachers accountable for outcomes they have not directly observed, supported, and modeled.
Framework Philosophy
Core Principle: The fish rots from the head down. Before holding teachers accountable for student outcomes, administrators must demonstrate their own competence in creating the conditions for success.
International Inspiration: Drawing from Finnish, Japanese, and Korean models where administrators maintain active teaching roles and direct student engagement.
Leadership Foundation: Based on servant leadership principles (Simon Sinek), emphasizing that leaders eat last, create psychological safety, and lead from the front lines rather than behind desks.
DOMAIN 1: Direct Student Engagement & Instructional Leadership
Component 1a: Active Classroom Presence
Required Standard: Minimum twice-weekly classroom presence in teaching or co-teaching capacity
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Classroom visits fewer than once per week
- Observes only through windows or brief walk-throughs
- No direct interaction with students during learning
- Relies entirely on teacher reports for student assessment
Developing
- Visits classrooms weekly but primarily observes
- Limited direct teaching or student interaction
- Engagement is superficial or inconsistent
- Does not know student names or individual capabilities
Proficient
- Present in classrooms minimum twice weekly
- Co-teaches lessons or conducts model lessons
- Knows student names and general academic levels
- Directly assesses student engagement and comprehension
Distinguished
- Maintains regular teaching schedule across multiple classrooms
- Students recognize administrator as active instructional partner
- Can articulate individual student strengths, challenges, and growth areas
- Uses firsthand observations to inform all instructional decisions
Component 1b: Firsthand Assessment of Student Character & Social-Emotional Competence
Required Standard: Direct observation and documentation of student character development, manners, courtesy, and social-emotional intelligence
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Relies exclusively on teacher reports and referral data
- No direct observation of student behavior in learning contexts
- Cannot articulate school's character education approach
- Views behavior as secondary to academics
Developing
- Observes student behavior during visits but lacks systematic assessment
- Limited understanding of individual student social-emotional needs
- Character development not integrated into instructional discussions
- Reactive rather than proactive approach to behavior
Proficient
- Systematically observes and documents student character development
- Checks in with students about respect, manners, cooperation, and self-regulation
- Can describe individual student growth in executive function and social skills
- Integrates character development into all instructional conversations
- Understands that ages 3-7 prioritize social-emotional over academic competencies
Distinguished
- Maintains detailed knowledge of each student's social-emotional profile
- Proactively coaches students in character development during classroom visits
- Models and teaches virtues, grace, and courtesy directly to students
- Creates systematic structures for character assessment separate from academic measures
- Designs school-wide character development systems based on direct observation
Component 1c: Instructional Expertise Through Practice
Required Standard: Demonstrates current pedagogical knowledge through active teaching
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Has not taught a lesson in over one year
- Cannot articulate current instructional best practices
- Disconnected from classroom realities
- Lacks credibility with teaching staff
Developing
- Teaches occasionally but inconsistently
- Demonstrates basic instructional competence
- Limited range of pedagogical strategies
- Does not model instructional innovation
Proficient
- Maintains active teaching rotation throughout school year
- Demonstrates strong pedagogical skills in classroom
- Models effective instructional strategies for staff
- Stays current with research-based practices through direct application
- Can troubleshoot instructional challenges from experience
Distinguished
- Recognized as master teacher by staff and students
- Experiments with and models cutting-edge instructional approaches
- Uses teaching experience to provide specific, credible feedback
- Creates professional learning opportunities based on own classroom experiences
- Maintains teaching skills at highest level despite administrative duties
DOMAIN 2: Learning Environment Leadership & Culture Building
Component 2a: Establishing Culture of Character & Virtue
Required Standard: Creates and maintains school-wide systems that prioritize character development as foundation for academic achievement
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- No articulated character education vision or system
- Treats character as separate from or secondary to academics
- Responds to behavior problems punitively without root cause analysis
- School culture emphasizes compliance over character growth
Developing
- Has character education program but implementation is inconsistent
- Some teachers implement character curriculum, others do not
- Administrator awareness of character development is superficial
- Limited connection between character work and academic outcomes
Proficient
- Clear, comprehensive character education framework implemented school-wide
- Character development explicitly taught and assessed
- Administrator actively participates in character lessons and modeling
- Staff trained and accountable for character development outcomes
- Recognizes character as foundation for academic rigor
- Follows international best practices for ages 3-7 emphasizing SEL over academics
Distinguished
- Character development seamlessly integrated into every aspect of school life
- Systematic assessment shows measurable growth in student virtues, manners, and social skills
- School recognized for culture of respect, courtesy, and emotional intelligence
- Academic achievement rises as direct result of character foundation
- Students demonstrate grace, empathy, and executive function skills
- Parents and community actively engaged in character development partnership
Component 2b: Creating Psychologically Safe Environment for Staff
Required Standard: Establishes trust-based culture where teachers feel supported, heard, and valued
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Staff fear administrator judgment and retaliation
- Evaluation system used as weapon rather than growth tool
- Administrator defensive when receiving feedback
- High teacher turnover and low morale
- Teachers feel blamed for systemic problems
Developing
- Some staff feel supported, others do not
- Inconsistent application of support and accountability
- Limited opportunities for genuine teacher voice
- Evaluation process creates anxiety rather than growth mindset
Proficient
- Teachers trust administrator intentions and integrity
- Evaluation system balanced with meaningful support
- Regular opportunities for teacher input on school decisions
- Administrator acknowledges own fallibility and learns from mistakes
- Teachers feel psychologically safe taking instructional risks
Distinguished
- Exemplary trust-based culture where teachers thrive
- Evaluation is truly developmental and collaborative
- Teachers actively seek administrator input and coaching
- Shared leadership model with meaningful teacher autonomy
- Low turnover; school is destination for top teachers
- Administrator creates conditions for teacher innovation and creativity
Component 2c: Proactive Problem-Solving & Systemic Thinking
Required Standard: Addresses root causes of challenges rather than blaming teachers
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Default response to problems is teacher accountability
- No analysis of systemic barriers to student success
- Curriculum fidelity demanded without examining curriculum quality
- "Work harder, be more engaging" is primary feedback
- Ignores resource gaps, class size issues, student trauma, and other root causes
Developing
- Acknowledges some systemic challenges but still primarily focuses on teacher performance
- Limited ability to differentiate between teacher effectiveness and systemic dysfunction
- Inconsistent in addressing barriers outside teacher control
- Some problem-solving, mostly reactive
Proficient
- Systematically analyzes root causes of instructional challenges
- Distinguishes between teacher skill issues and systemic problems
- Addresses curriculum gaps, resource needs, and structural barriers
- Advocates for teachers when district mandates are problematic
- Balances accountability with systems improvement
- Questions whether "fidelity to curriculum" is appropriate when curriculum is flawed
Distinguished
- Sophisticated systems thinker who addresses multiple levels of causation
- Protects teachers from ineffective mandates and advocates at district level
- Creates structures that eliminate barriers to teacher effectiveness
- Models reflective problem-solving that examines leadership first
- Transparent about own mistakes and systemic challenges
- Changes systems rather than demanding teacher compliance with broken systems
DOMAIN 3: Professional Engagement & Continuous Learning
Component 3a: Maintaining Current Pedagogical Knowledge
Required Standard: Demonstrates commitment to staying current with educational research and best practices
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- No evidence of current professional learning
- Instructional feedback based on outdated practices or personal preference
- Disconnected from current educational research
- Cannot articulate evidence base for school initiatives
Developing
- Occasional professional learning but inconsistent application
- Some awareness of current research but limited depth
- Professional development for staff not aligned with evidence-based practices
- Gaps between stated priorities and actual practice
Proficient
- Actively engaged in ongoing professional learning
- Stays current with educational research and best practices
- Can articulate evidence base for instructional decisions
- Models continuous learning mindset for staff
- Professional learning clearly connected to school improvement goals
Distinguished
- Recognized expert who contributes to educational knowledge base
- Deep understanding of current research across multiple domains
- Translates complex research into practical applications
- Creates learning organization culture throughout school
- Professional learning highly targeted and impactful
Component 3b: Listening & Authentic Communication
Required Standard: Demonstrates genuine listening skills and creates bidirectional communication
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Does not listen to teacher concerns or feedback
- Communication is one-directional (top-down only)
- Defensive when questioned or challenged
- Teachers report feeling unheard and invalidated
Developing
- Listens selectively or inconsistently
- Some opportunities for teacher voice but limited impact
- Occasionally defensive or dismissive
- Communication improving but still primarily directive
Proficient
- Actively listens to understand, not just to respond
- Creates regular structures for teacher input and feedback
- Responds non-defensively to concerns and criticism
- Communication is balanced between directive and collaborative
- Teachers feel genuinely heard even when decisions go different direction
Distinguished
- Exceptional listening skills create deep trust and openness
- Actively seeks feedback and dissenting opinions
- Changes course based on teacher input when appropriate
- Models vulnerability and intellectual humility
- Communication creates genuine partnership and shared ownership
Component 3c: Collaborative Professional Community
Required Standard: Builds and sustains strong professional learning communities
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Teachers work in isolation with little collaboration
- No structured time or expectation for professional learning
- Administrator absent from or controlling of collaborative work
- Compliance-focused rather than learning-focused culture
Developing
- Some collaborative structures exist but implementation is weak
- Teacher collaboration focuses on logistics rather than instruction
- Administrator involvement is inconsistent or superficial
- Limited impact on instructional practice
Proficient
- Strong professional learning community structures in place
- Regular, protected time for meaningful teacher collaboration
- Administrator participates as learner and contributor
- Collaboration focused on improving student learning and character development
- Evidence of improved practice resulting from collaborative work
Distinguished
- Exemplary professional learning community recognized beyond school
- Deep, sustained collaborative inquiry into practice
- Administrator as lead learner models continuous growth
- Collaboration includes examining student character and SEL data alongside academics
- Culture of collective responsibility for all students
- Innovation and experimentation encouraged and supported
DOMAIN 4: Strategic Leadership & Advocacy
Component 4a: Vision & Strategic Direction
Required Standard: Articulates and implements clear vision that prioritizes character development as foundation for academic excellence
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- No clear vision or vision is generic and uninspiring
- Daily operations disconnected from stated goals
- Academic achievement pursued without attention to character foundation
- Reactive rather than strategic leadership
Developing
- Vision exists but lacks specificity or inspiration
- Inconsistent alignment between vision and daily practice
- Some attention to character development but not integrated into vision
- Limited strategic planning capacity
Proficient
- Clear, compelling vision that prioritizes character as foundation for learning
- Vision explicitly values manners, grace, courtesy, virtues, and social-emotional development
- Strategic planning aligns resources and actions with vision
- Stakeholders can articulate and see vision in action
- Character development integrated into all strategic decisions
- Follows developmental principles (ages 3-7 emphasize SEL before academics)
Distinguished
- Transformational vision that elevates entire school community
- Vision creates measurable improvement in both character and academic outcomes
- All stakeholders deeply invested in and enacting vision
- Strategic leadership extends influence beyond building to district and broader field
- School recognized as model for character-based academic excellence
- Vision creates lasting cultural change
Component 4b: District & System Advocacy
Required Standard: Advocates effectively for students, teachers, and evidence-based practices at district and system level
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Passively implements all district mandates without question
- Does not advocate for students or teachers at system level
- Blames teachers for problems created by district policies
- No voice in district decision-making
Developing
- Occasionally questions problematic mandates but inconsistently
- Limited advocacy for school needs at district level
- Some buffering of teachers from ineffective policies
- Emerging voice in district conversations
Proficient
- Actively advocates for students and teachers at district level
- Questions mandates that contradict evidence or harm students
- Effectively buffers teachers from counterproductive district requirements
- Contributes substantively to district policy and practice discussions
- Willing to push back on "fidelity to curriculum" when curriculum is flawed
- Protects school's character education priorities from competing mandates
Distinguished
- Influential leader who shapes district and system-level policy
- Successfully advocates for changes to ineffective mandates
- Recognized voice for evidence-based practice and character education
- Creates coalitions for systemic improvement
- Protects teachers while holding district accountable for providing effective supports
- Changes systems to benefit students across multiple schools
Component 4c: Resource Allocation & Support
Required Standard: Allocates resources strategically to support character development and instructional excellence
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Resource decisions disconnected from priorities
- Insufficient resources allocated to character education
- Teachers lack necessary materials and support
- Budget decisions made without teacher input or strategic consideration
Developing
- Some alignment between resources and priorities
- Limited investment in character development infrastructure
- Inconsistent support for teacher needs
- Budget process includes minimal stakeholder input
Proficient
- Strategic resource allocation aligned with character-first vision
- Adequate investment in character education curriculum, training, and assessment
- Teachers have necessary resources to implement effective practices
- Transparent budget process with meaningful stakeholder input
- Resources distributed equitably based on student need
Distinguished
- Exemplary resource management maximizes every dollar for student benefit
- Innovative approaches to securing and allocating resources
- Comprehensive support for character education at all levels
- Teachers report having everything needed for success
- Creative problem-solving addresses resource constraints
- Resource decisions create measurable improvement in outcomes
Component 4d: Family & Community Partnership
Required Standard: Engages families and community as partners in character and academic development
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Minimal family engagement or one-way communication
- Families not included in character education efforts
- Community resources untapped
- Parents viewed as problems rather than partners
Developing
- Basic family communication structures in place
- Some family engagement in school activities
- Limited partnership in character development
- Emerging community connections
Proficient
- Strong family partnerships with two-way communication
- Families actively engaged in supporting character education at home
- Regular opportunities for family participation in school life
- Community resources strategically engaged to support students
- Parents understand and reinforce school's character development priorities
Distinguished
- Exemplary family and community partnerships transform outcomes
- Families as co-educators in character and academic development
- Comprehensive support network includes community organizations
- School serves as community hub for character and learning
- Measurable impact of family/community engagement on student success
- Parents advocate for school's character-based approach
DOMAIN 5: Personal Leadership & Integrity
Component 5a: Modeling Character & Virtue
Required Standard: Personally embodies the character traits and virtues expected of students and staff
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Does not model expected character traits
- Students and staff observe hypocrisy between stated values and actions
- Lacks basic courtesy, respect, or professionalism
- Personal conduct undermines school culture
Developing
- Generally professional but inconsistent in modeling character
- Occasional lapses in demonstrating expected virtues
- Students and staff notice gaps between words and actions
- Limited self-awareness about personal impact
Proficient
- Consistently models character traits expected throughout school
- Students and staff see integrity between values and actions
- Demonstrates grace, courtesy, empathy, and self-regulation
- Personal conduct strengthens school culture
- Models what it means to be lifelong learner and growing person
Distinguished
- Exemplary model of character that inspires others
- Students and staff describe administrator's character as aspirational
- Demonstrates virtue even under pressure and in difficult circumstances
- Personal integrity creates deep trust and moral authority
- Models continuous character growth and self-reflection
- Conduct creates lasting positive impact on school culture
Component 5b: Emotional Intelligence & Self-Regulation
Required Standard: Demonstrates high emotional intelligence and manages own anxiety without displacing it onto others
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Reactive and emotionally dysregulated
- Anxiety creates chaos for staff and students
- Unable to separate personal feelings from professional decisions
- Low self-awareness about emotional impact on others
Developing
- Generally composed but occasional emotional reactivity
- Some ability to manage stress but inconsistent
- Developing self-awareness about emotional patterns
- Limited ability to create calm under pressure
Proficient
- Demonstrates consistent emotional regulation
- Manages own anxiety without transferring to staff
- High self-awareness about emotions and impact on others
- Creates calm and stability even in challenging circumstances
- Models healthy stress management and resilience
Distinguished
- Exceptional emotional intelligence creates optimal environment
- Provides emotional stability that allows others to take risks
- Deep self-awareness enables continuous growth
- Transforms organizational anxiety into productive problem-solving
- Models emotional health that influences entire school community
- Creates psychological safety through emotional leadership
Component 5c: Ethical Decision-Making & Courage
Required Standard: Makes difficult decisions based on what's best for students, not what's politically expedient
Performance Levels:
Unsatisfactory
- Decisions driven by political considerations or personal benefit
- Avoids difficult decisions or controversial stances
- Compromises student welfare for convenience or approval
- Lacks courage to stand up for principles
Developing
- Generally ethical but inconsistent under pressure
- Sometimes prioritizes convenience over student benefit
- Emerging courage but selective about which battles to fight
- Developing ethical reasoning capacity
Proficient
- Consistently makes decisions based on student benefit
- Demonstrates courage to take unpopular stances when necessary
- Transparent ethical reasoning process
- Willing to challenge system when it harms students
- Models integrity even when difficult or costly
Distinguished
- Exemplary ethical leadership recognized throughout community
- Consistent courage in advocating for students against all pressures
- Sophisticated ethical reasoning that navigates complex situations
- Creates ethical culture throughout organization
- Willing to sacrifice personal advancement for student welfare
- Inspires ethical courage in others through example
Implementation Guidelines
Assessment & Evaluation Process
- Multi-Source Feedback: Include input from teachers, students, parents, and district leadership
- Direct Observation: External evaluators observe administrator in classroom teaching role
- Student Outcome Data: Include character development measures alongside academic metrics
- 360-Degree Review: Anonymous feedback from all stakeholder groups
- Self-Assessment: Administrator reflects on own practice against framework
- Growth Plans: Identified areas for development with specific action steps and timelines
Evaluation Cycle
- Quarterly: Self-assessment and stakeholder feedback collection
- Bi-Annual: Formal evaluation with external reviewer
- Annual: Comprehensive review with growth plan development
- Ongoing: Weekly documentation of classroom presence and student interaction
Accountability Measures
Minimum Requirements (Failure to meet results in improvement plan):
- Twice-weekly classroom presence in teaching or co-teaching role
- Direct observation and documentation of student character development
- Demonstrated firsthand knowledge of student academic and social-emotional competencies
- Active listening and responsive communication with staff
- Evidence-based instructional practices
- Strategic resource allocation aligned with character-first priorities
Consequences for Non-Performance:
- Improvement plan with specific benchmarks and timelines
- Coaching and support from mentor administrator
- Potential reassignment if improvement not demonstrated
- Removal from administrative role for continued failure to meet minimum standards
Support Structures for Administrators
- Mentorship: Pairing with exemplary administrator who models framework
- Professional Learning: Targeted development in areas of growth
- Peer Collaboration: Administrative PLCs focused on leadership practice
- Instructional Coaching: Support in maintaining teaching skills
- Character Education Training: Deep learning in social-emotional development
- Leadership Coaching: Executive coaching in emotional intelligence and systems thinking
Philosophical Foundation
This framework rests on several non-negotiable principles:
-
Character Precedes Achievement: Academic rigor without character foundation creates fragile, unsustainable outcomes. Schools must develop the whole child, starting with virtues, manners, grace, courtesy, and social-emotional intelligence.
-
Leadership is Embodied, Not Delegated: Administrators cannot lead from behind desks. They must be present, visible, active participants in the daily life of teaching and learning.
-
Firsthand Knowledge is Essential: No secondhand information. Administrators must directly observe, teach, and assess both academic competencies and character development.
-
Systems Before Individuals: When problems arise, examine systems first. Teachers operate within constraints created by leadership and policy. Change systems before blaming individuals.
-
Trust is Foundational: Psychological safety for staff creates conditions for innovation, risk-taking, and excellence. Fear-based accountability destroys what it attempts to create.
-
Developmental Appropriateness Matters: Ages 3-7 require emphasis on social-emotional and character development before academic pressure. Schools that violate developmental principles harm children regardless of academic outcomes.
-
Integrity Between Words and Actions: Administrators must model what they expect. Hypocrisy destroys moral authority and undermines all other efforts.
-
Servant Leadership: Leaders eat last. The administrator's role is to create conditions for others' success, not to elevate themselves.
Conclusion
This framework demands that administrators meet the same rigorous standards they apply to teachers—and then exceed them. It rejects the common practice of hiding behind desks, relying on secondhand information, and using evaluation frameworks as weapons rather than developmental tools.
The fish rots from the head down. If we want excellent schools with strong character and academic achievement, we must first demand excellence from those who lead them. This framework provides the structure, accountability, and support to make that vision reality.
The time for transformation is now. Leadership excellence begins here.
"The Accountability Gap: Why We Blame Teachers for Leadership Failures"
In education today, we have created an elaborate system for holding teachers accountable. The Danielson Framework. Value-added measures. Standardized test scores. Observation rubrics. Professional improvement plans. Teachers operate under constant scrutiny, their every decision documented, evaluated, and judged.
Yet when schools fail, who is held accountable? The teachers.
When curriculum doesn't work? Blame the teachers' fidelity to implementation.
When behavior problems escalate? Teachers need to be "more engaging, more entertaining."
When test scores drop? Teachers aren't working hard enough.
But here's what nobody wants to say out loud: Teachers don't choose the curriculum. Teachers don't set class sizes. Teachers don't determine resource allocation. Teachers don't create district mandates. Teachers don't hire staff or establish school culture.
Administrators do. School boards do. District leadership does.
The fish rots from the head down—yet we keep examining the tail.
The Questions Nobody Is Asking
When a school struggles, ask these questions before you blame the teachers:
To the Principal:
- When was the last time you taught a full lesson in a classroom?
- Can you name three students' specific character strengths and growth areas from your own observation?
- How many times this week were you present in classrooms as a teacher, not just an observer?
- What systemic barriers have you identified and eliminated that were preventing teacher success?
- When curriculum mandates aren't working, do you advocate for change or demand compliance?
To the School Board:
- What direct, firsthand knowledge do you have of classroom conditions in your district?
- How do you assess administrator effectiveness beyond test scores and parent complaints?
- What accountability measures exist for principals who never enter classrooms?
- When teachers report that mandates are harming students, how do you respond?
- What percentage of your budget goes to administrative overhead versus direct classroom support?
To District Leadership:
- How do you know if your curriculum is actually working, beyond compliance reports?
- What mechanisms exist for teachers to challenge ineffective policies without retaliation?
- When schools fail, how do you determine whether it's a teaching problem or a systems problem?
- What support have you provided before implementing accountability measures?
- Who evaluates your effectiveness, and how?
The Uncomfortable Truth
We have endless mechanisms for holding teachers accountable because teachers are the most vulnerable people in the education hierarchy. They have the least power, the most scrutiny, and the fewest protections.
Holding administrators and school board members accountable would require those very administrators and board members to create systems that judge their own effectiveness. It would require acknowledging that when schools fail, leadership may be the root cause.
That kind of accountability requires courage. It requires humility. It requires admitting that the problem might not be the teachers working 60-hour weeks with inadequate resources—the problem might be the leaders who created those conditions.
What Real Accountability Looks Like
Imagine a school system where:
- Principals are required to teach in classrooms twice per week, maintaining current instructional skills and firsthand knowledge of student needs
- Administrators are evaluated on their ability to create character-rich environments, not just test scores
- School board members must spend time in classrooms before voting on curriculum or policy changes
- When schools struggle, leaders ask "What systems need to change?" before asking "Which teachers need to improve?"
- Administrators who hide behind desks and rely on secondhand information face consequences, just like teachers who don't meet standards
- Parents and teachers have clear frameworks for evaluating principal effectiveness, not just vague complaints with no recourse
This isn't fantasy. This is how high-performing education systems around the world operate. In Finland, Japan, and South Korea, administrators maintain active teaching roles. Leadership isn't divorced from classroom reality—it's grounded in it.
The Path Forward
Teachers deserve better. Students deserve better. Communities deserve better.
We deserve leaders who:
- Model the character and virtues they expect from students
- Know students firsthand, not through data dashboards
- Fix broken systems instead of blaming the people working within them
- Maintain instructional credibility through active teaching
- Create psychologically safe environments where innovation thrives
- Take responsibility when leadership decisions fail
The Leadership Excellence Framework isn't about punishing administrators. It's about elevating the profession of educational leadership to match the complexity and importance of the work.
It's about recognizing that if we're going to hold teachers to rigorous standards—and we should—we must hold leaders to even higher ones.
It's about finally asking the question that makes everyone uncomfortable:
If teachers are accountable for outcomes, who holds accountable the people who create the conditions in which teachers work?
The answer should be: Everyone. Parents. Teachers. Communities. School boards. State departments of education.
But first, we need a framework that defines what excellent administrative leadership actually looks like.
Now we have one.
The question is: Do we have the courage to use it?
Discussion Prompts
For Teachers:
- What would change in your school if your principal spent two days per week teaching in classrooms?
- How would your work improve if administrators focused on fixing systems instead of critiquing your implementation of flawed mandates?
- What accountability measures would you want to see for school leadership?
For Administrators:
- What prevents you from teaching regularly in classrooms? Are these true barriers or excuses?
- How much of your knowledge about student character and academic competence comes from firsthand observation versus teacher reports?
- Are you willing to be held to the same rigorous standards you apply to teachers?
For Parents:
- Do you know how often your principal is in classrooms teaching or observing?
- What mechanisms exist for you to provide feedback on administrative effectiveness?
- When your child's school struggles, do you have any way to hold leadership accountable, or only teachers?
For School Board Members:
- What direct, firsthand knowledge do you have of classroom conditions and student needs?
- How do you evaluate whether your policies are helping or harming students and teachers?
- Are you willing to be evaluated with the same rigor as the teachers and administrators you oversee?
Call to Action
Share this framework. Send it to your school board. Forward it to your principal. Post it at staff meetings. Discuss it with parent groups.
Demand accountability. Not just for teachers—for everyone who makes decisions that affect children's education.
Model the change. If you're an administrator reading this, take the first step. Get into a classroom this week. Teach a lesson. Observe student character firsthand. Listen to teacher concerns without defensiveness.
Build coalitions. Parents, teachers, and community members united around rigorous leadership accountability can create change that isolated individuals cannot.
Remember the purpose. This isn't about blame. It's about creating schools where character comes first, where leadership is grounded in classroom reality, where systems serve children instead of protecting adults.
The fish rots from the head down.
It's time to heal the head so the whole body can thrive.
Final Thought
Teachers have been carrying the weight of accountability for decades. They've been blamed for failures they didn't create, held responsible for outcomes they can't control, and scrutinized under frameworks that often feel designed to catch them failing rather than help them succeed.
What if we took even a fraction of that accountability energy and directed it upward?
What if we demanded that principals demonstrate instructional excellence by teaching?
What if we required administrators to build character-rich school cultures before obsessing over test scores?
What if we held school boards accountable for creating conditions where teachers and students can thrive?
What if we recognized that leadership effectiveness is the foundation for everything else in education?
The Leadership Excellence Framework makes this possible.
Now it's up to us to make it real.
"The measure of leadership is not the quality of the head, but the tone of the body. The signs of outstanding leadership appear primarily among the followers." — Max De Pree
"Before you are a leader, success is all about growing yourself. When you become a leader, success is all about growing others." — Jack Welch
"The task of leadership is not to put greatness into people, but to elicit it, for the greatness is there already." — John Buchan
And most importantly:
"The fish rots from the head down." — Chinese Proverb
It's time to ensure the head stays healthy, so the whole body can flourish.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you!