The Case of Dr. Andres Alonso: Principles of leadership in practice to transform urban schools Jared R. Lancer, Ed.D.

Problem. The major problem in public school systems, especially in urban school systems, is a lack of clarity of purpose and specificity of focus to solve specific student learning problems through methods of teaching.?A key factor deals with a lack of consistency and focus in documentation practices in terms of student responses to teaching.?The larger problems of low student academic performance outcomes, disparities and lack of continuity and depth of learning is a reflection of many failures, including a lack of studying and learning from these failures.?For example, there is a significant lack of depth of focus, study and substance of conversation in the schools. The focus of discussion needs to address teaching methods, curriculum learning experiences and deliberate design of an intentional social context to do certain and specific work with intended outcomes in schools.?The role of documentation of practice regarding student responses to learning is the most essential source of information to study. This study involves continuous analysis relative to making improvements to meet our obligation to students and families.

However, traditional conceptualizations of leadership commonly operates within the broader societal cultural frame of reference based upon the majority culture in the United States.?This contributes to particular cognitive schemas, perspectives and understandings. These understandings are often counterproductive to solving the literacy and socialization crises for diverse student populations and all learners attending our nation’s public schools.??For instance, narrow, linear and rigid perspectives among leaders at all levels inhibits the ability to recognize broader social patterns in the community and skews the interpretation and understanding of diverse student populations within schools.?Literal or surface level forms of comprehension inhibits the ability to analyze and find deeper meanings.?This becomes highly problematic for those aspiring or holding formal leadership roles at all levels.?As opposed to a more holistic perspective with the ability to see and make connections, narrow, linear and rigid thought patterns exacerbates pre-existing challenges. This leadership perspective and habit of mind perpetuates instability in public schools, has the potential to cause harm and to not develop the full potential of all students to participate in our democracy as contributing citizens.?

There is, for instance, a need to recognize the interrelationships among the political economy operating within the broader society. There is a need to recognize the direct role and responsibility of public schools for the prevalence of homelessness, poverty and illiteracy among different social groups in the community.?There is a need to understand and be responsive to the deeper historical, cultural and political meanings and perspectives across different social groups in the community and inside the district and its schools.?How does leadership comprehend, analyze and understand patterns of what data mean relative to articulating existing approaches and explaining variation in learning outcomes for students? Advocating for equity while maintaining narrow perspectives of the curriculum and rigid adherence to the “science of reading” and no outcomes is unethical and deceptive with long-term implications for students and the nation.?Thinking through how stakeholders will become invested in strategies rather than thinking about narrow conceptions of buy in requires skilled facilitation as part of strategy.?Rigid perspectives of telling people what to do, rather than creating options and choices for taking on leadership as part of a solution, is another example of narrow and rigid leadership.?This kind of leadership is well represented in traditional public schools. This perspective is evidenced whether in interpreting the responses and communication styles of diverse students and families, explaining data results and programs, making sense of the budget as well as the notion of purchasing the curriculum. This perspective is represented when public school systems aspire to address the trauma children face outside of schools rather than a focus on eliminating trauma students experience directly inside of schools.

There is a familiar question often posed, “Are leaders born?”?The very notion of the question itself suggests the idea that certain individuals are destined to assume positions of influence and power.?This reflects a fixed perspective on intelligence and suggests that some people are not innately so destined. This perspective makes prominent the antithesis of more of a science-based approach in idiosyncratic leadership practice which promotes instability, lack of continuity and inconsistency in all areas and failing to meet student outcomes.?

Principles of leadership.?Based on observation and analysis, effective leadership practice that achieves the intended outcomes for students is guided by three underlying principles.?This type of leadership promotes greater organizational stability, consistency and continuity as well as sustainability in public school systems at all levels.?When enacted with consistency, this type of leadership increases the predictability of meeting the intended outcomes for all students. The interrelated principles are:

Principle #1. Comprehensive assessment: Conducting a comprehensive assessment results in formulating direction that builds and extends upon the present context.?To be effective, leadership practice and direction must be guided by a depth of understanding of the complexity of the particular context and setting in which the district and its schools are located and that considers multiple perspectives.?The understanding developed considers a number of factors in terms of what is working and not working for particular groups of learners and all students based upon evidence.?Depth is considered when for instance reading progress is examined for all grade levels and groups of students over the past 10-20 years to discern observable patterns.?Discussion with stakeholder groups is structured to understand diverse perspectives regarding the impact for students in the schools, including hearing from stakeholders who experienced success and especially from particular groups of students and families who did not experience success. Recognizing how performance changes across grade levels in reading in relationship to the curriculum is significant. Determining the meaning of impact data over time when comparing stable groups of students who were enrolled from 1st grade for instance through graduation as compared with students who were enrolled in later grades only reveals a more accurate indicator of the strength of programs and approaches. Focused inquiry with teaching teams and with student groups provides the opportunity to understand more deeply particular values and perspectives as well as strengths and challenges within the culture and considering the history of the particular agency, context and setting.?Developing such an understanding through assessment of the district and its schools will reveal with clarity the direction and focus for a district as well as each of its schools.?Such an assessment supports setting direction and focus that builds and extends upon the present setting with a consideration for multiple perspectives and a recognition of the history and culture as well as political and social arrangements and what is valued and by whom.

Principle #2. Facilitated investment: Structuring real stakeholder participation in decision making results in greater levels of responsibility and investment in the approaches used and accountability for meeting the intended outcomes. Structuring and facilitating authentic stakeholder participation in decision making to define challenges, propose as well as carry out strategies and solutions increases the level of engagement and ultimately investment and commitment to improvement efforts and their success. However, to optimize participation and success, organizing and structuring continuous opportunities requires strategic planning, focused inquiry, documentation and thoughtful analysis. Simply providing such opportunities, listening, recording and reporting the range of options of what stakeholders think and feel and propose or selecting a few ideas that reflect what the majority of people are saying is insufficient and is not leadership.?To be effective, leadership must consider the range of perspectives and experiences, corroborate findings with supporting evidence, pose questions and clarify differences and similarities in perspectives to understand and decipher patterns and what they mean.?Leadership involves defining an overall direction and expectations for how such structures will work to ensure individual participation and authenticity in collective decision making with standards for the depth and substance of articulating challenges as well as coherence and alignment. Proposed strategies and solutions will emerge and come to the fore over time to address the unique needs and perspectives of diverse stakeholders in the actual context.?Rather than linear and simplistic decision making structures, deep engagement builds commitment, investment and knowledge through complex analysis and forethought in considering challenges and thinking through actual strategies and plans for making real change and improvement for students.

Principle #3. Focused analysis: Maintaining a consistent focus on a clearly defined problem while subjecting strategies to ongoing evaluation and adjustment results in meeting the intended outcomes with greater predictability.?Maintaining focus on a clearly defined problem and what the agency is trying to accomplish must be coupled with individual as well as collective internal agency team commitment and investment to collaborative and creative problem solving. The framing that leadership uses to influence and organize and/or facilitate such structures must promote inquiry, depth of thought and analysis regarding the extent to which present strategies are working and for whom and under which conditions. The converse is operationalizing traditional structures as in “data driven decision making” that reflects linear and narrow decision making as well as surface conversations that reinforce and perpetuate present approaches irrespective of the evidence of impact on learners.

The Case of Andres Alonso.?The following is a description of the focus and work of Dr. Andres Alonso which is illustrative of the above-referenced principles guiding effective leadership practice as follows:

Focus. ?Dr. Andres Alonso, who served as Superintendent of the Baltimore City Schools, understands the range and complexity of challenges facing urban school systems. But for Dr. Alonso, it is critical to develop an in-depth understanding of the social, political, cultural and historical context of the community and setting in which the district and its schools are located. Developing such an understanding will reveal what is most valued in the particular context and from whose perspective and why.?Ultimately, for the Baltimore City Schools, the range of complex challenges converged on a central focus to significantly increase student retention and graduation rates by keeping students and families engaged and reducing the drop-out rate.

Description of strategy and impact – Dr. Andres Alonso. ?For Dr. Alonso, the challenges as well as opportunities for urban school systems are based upon the ability of the agency to establish legitimacy and authority among internal and external stakeholders and the extent to which the organization has the capacity to deliver expected outcomes. This challenge contributes to the instability and lack of continuity of leadership and programs and turbulence in districts – even exemplified by conflicts and disagreements over what the goals and focus should be – as well as mistrust and cynicism among teachers and staff and the community.

Dr. Alonso served as Superintendent/CEO of the Baltimore City Public Schools from 2007-2013. Upon assuming the role, the district was under threat of a state takeover due to exceedingly high suspension, expulsion and drop-out rates as well as low student academic performance and a 60% graduation rate (Grossman, Johnson, Brookover, 2011). In addition, the district had lost more than 30,000 students since 1995 and a total of approximately 100,000 students over the past 40 years, down to 81,500 students upon Dr. Alonso’s arrival (Grossman, et al, 2011; Vanourek, 2012).

As the 7th superintendent in 10 years, Dr. Alonso established a great working relationship with the board which was looking to establish continuity and to move the district forward. Dr. Alonso and the team began his tenure by conducting listening tours as part of a needs assessment to understand the challenges of the district from multiple stakeholder perspectives over a 6 month period throughout the district, including parents, community members, teachers and principals. During these sessions, Dr. Alonso and the team listened carefully, documenting concerns, but also asked questions, engaging in two-way conversations to understand the perspectives of families and community members as well as to obtain input and recommendations for solutions (Mapp and Noonan, 2015).

Dr. Alonso and the central team invested significant time talking and listening to many groups of people to understand the ecology, culture and context of the district. Leadership spent time visiting schools to make observations, ask questions, and listen to stakeholder perspectives to understand what was being offered and what was working and not working for students and families. Through listening tours in the community and making observations in the schools, Dr. Alonso continuously examined what the district and schools were doing with students who were functioning below grade specifically. Dr. Alonso wanted to understand the culture and context inside the schools and classrooms and the underlying reasons why students and parents were being pushed out, reflected in high drop-out rates and perpetual declines in student enrollment. Dr. Alonso and the team provided direct email addresses to parents, teachers and principals to communicate their concerns openly and immediately.?Upon participating in open dialogues at the schools with principals, teachers and parents and community members, stakeholders were surprised to find that there was not some sudden plan rolled out and introduced with strategies and solutions (Grossman et al, 2012).??Alternatively, there was documentation, listening, asking questions and seeking to understand different perspectives regarding challenges, past strategies and recommendations. This assessment included understanding punitive and zero tolerance policies and practices employed in the district and inside school. This also included understanding the perspectives of families and their expectations and needs regarding the quality of academic programs and services as well as responsiveness of the schools in addressing parent concerns regarding student safety and the overall climate of the schools as well as student academic progress and quality of support services.???

Developing a comprehensive understanding of the challenges of the district and the context within the schools further involved considering multiple dimensions and perspectives regarding successes and especially challenges and needs. This included assessing staffing patterns, the range and distribution of years of teaching experience and the reasons why younger teachers were choosing to exit the district. In addition, a critical lever for change was at the school level, so a question examined was the extent to which the district maintained the capacity to develop leadership to ensure that every school was led by an excellent school principal? Dr. Alonso and the team also came to understand that parents were asking for different options, flexibility and choices. Principals wanted greater autonomy and authority to make decisions regarding curriculum, staffing, the budget and school improvement decisions. They wanted a more evenly representative distribution of students attending traditional neighborhood schools rather than the pre-existing student enrollment tracks that send academically successful students to the district’s magnet schools. Ultimately, Dr. Alonso and the team found a great deal of control, inflexibility and rigidity from central office and little autonomy, investment, choices or responsibility for making improvement and meeting expected outcomes for students at the school level (Grossman et al, 2011).

Following this assessment, Dr. Alonso and the team established that the major challenge and marker for success would be moving the needle with parents, maintaining and increasing student retention and enrollment and ultimately the graduation rate while lowering the drop-out rate. In other words, what would the schools, programs, options and engagement need to look like for students and families to choose to stay in the district every year through graduation? These questions and concerns surfaced when analyzing the data. Dr. Alonso and the team observed the decrease in enrollment from 1-2 grade, again after grade 5, after grade 8 and in grades 9-10 in particular. Parents were either choosing to enroll their children in different school systems, parochial or private schools, or students were dropping out and exiting the system. The district was losing approximately 3% of the student population each year as well as significant funding. Based on this focus, Dr. Alonso and team set forth a process to derive strategies to address this challenge in order to reach the expected outcome.

With a clear focus and goal, Dr. Alonso and the team set forth three guiding principles aimed to create greater flexibility and choices for students and parents as well as autonomy, investment, responsibility and accountability for meeting outcomes among principals in the schools. These included a focus on (1) fair, clear and open as well as public decision making that is in the best interest of students; (2) Establishing school level decision making in all areas guided by shared principles to meet explicit goals for achieving the expected outcomes; and, (3) Engaging families as partners as well as members of the community in decision making (Mapp at el, 2015).

Principal investment and responsibility in decision making and accountability for results. ?As such, a critical action was establishing new policies, structures and practices in keeping with these three guiding principles in order to create real stakeholder investment, ownership and responsibility for making decisions that are in the best interest of students and learning. For instance, Dr. Alonso and the team established a new school-based budgeting policy, shifting from a funding algorithm based upon staff personnel and experience to a student-centered formula based upon the value of each child with higher amounts according to the needs of each learner (Grossman et al, 2011; Furtick, 2013). A large number of central office staff were eliminated which enabled greater levels of resources from the budget to be redirected at the school level (Furtick, 2013). Other changes were made based on observation and analysis of school practices and what was pushing students and families out. As a result, changes to suspension and expulsion policies and practices relative to attendance and truancy for instance were made. In addition, greater investments in resources and accountability was provided for instituting restorative and mediation practices in lieu of punitive actions (Furtick, 2013; Harvey, 2013). These shifts were significant, sending the message that each child and family has value and that principals need to think of strategies and determine the actions needed to keep students and families engaged and progressing from year to year through graduation.

Dr. Alonso and the team had a vision for the schools where people know what they are doing and why and that there is real ownership and investment among all stakeholders in decision making that is in the best interest of children and learning. Principals had significantly greater levels of responsibility in making the best decisions for students and learning in running the schools guided by a set of principles and explicit goals to guide the work of keeping students engaged to meet outcomes.

Many principals were excited regarding the new changes and greater levels of responsibility, now having control of the school budget, curriculum and staffing decisions and developing strategies for school improvement (Grossman et al, 2011; Johnson, Grossman, Faller, Marietta, 2012). Dr. Alonso and the team understood that no two schools are necessarily alike and each has a unique context with specific needs. Now, principals had to think much differently about their work. For example, in the past there were examples of principals who felt there was little that could be done regarding curriculum materials that did not meet the reading needs of upper grade students (Grossman et al, 2011). With the change, principals and teachers had much greater authority and investment in and responsibility for making decisions that best meet the particular learning needs for students at the school level. And as a result, principals were being held accountable for doing so.

In addition, the central office was restructured into Networks for providing support and accountability to schools and principals. This approach reflected a trust in the leadership at the local school level within a structure for making decisions that are in the best interest of students and that require the active engagement of families and the community. This position meant that the provision of support, guidance and evaluation of schools was provided based upon understanding the actual context, needs and work of the professionals in the schools. This involved striking a middle ground and using a balanced approach, asking questions and providing strategic guidance rather than telling people what to do and leveraging mandates on the one hand or permitting schools to do whatever they wanted on the other absent guidance and justification (Grossman et al, 2011).

Teacher investment, leadership, responsibility and accountability.?The strategy to realize a vision for real stakeholder investment in decision making and responsibility for student learning outcomes in the schools changed and evolved over time. A critical strategy was designing and implementing an innovative four-tier career pathway system to promote competent teaching and teacher leadership in the schools. As a result, teacher salary schedules changed from a formula based upon years of service to justification grounded in student performance (Johnson, Kim, Marietta, Faller, Noonan, 2013; Harvey, 2013).

This strategy was a part of the larger vision to create engagement and investment at the school level for making decisions that are in the best interest of students and learning and taking responsibility and accountability for results. The focus was about developing a structure to promote deep teacher engagement and leadership in the schools. The structure promoted teachers serving first as excellent models of competent teaching and also providing the resources and options to enable effective teachers to stay in the classroom while taking on greater leadership roles to support competent teaching in the schools (Johnson et al, 2013). The effort became known as the, “Baltimore Professional Practices and Student Learning Program.” Staying focused on the larger purpose of creating teacher investment and leadership in the schools was an ongoing process of piloting, implementation, negotiation and adjustment using a collaborative approach over time.

Parent and community engagement, empowerment and investment in decision making. Creating conditions for shared decision making, investment and responsibility for meeting outcomes at the school level further involved partnering with communities to build political coalitions with parents and organizations. Spearheading this strategy was a new Partnership and Community Engagement Office reporting directly to Dr. Alonso. The purpose of this Office was to create schools that were connected to the community and empowering families at the center of decision making. The goal was to empower parents with options and choices, empowered with capital as decision makers, where their voices were heard and taken seriously (Mapp et al 2015).

In conjunction with this new Office and strategy, a significant new policy centered on open enrollment which was?further reflective of the guiding principles to promote great schools in the district. This policy empowered parents with choices about where to send their children to school, as each family was afforded the opportunity to select their top three choices annually (Furtick, 2013). With this greater flexibility of choices and options for parents as well as for principals, a number of schools were subsequently closed and site leaders replaced because of low enrollment as well as student academic performance. These closures were a direct byproduct of the low student and parent demand for these schools (Furtick, 2013; Harvey, 2013). Accordingly, it is noteworthy to point out that school closures were fully supported with clarity by families and the community because of the choices that were being made by students and parents as well as the strategy of community and parent organizing, communication and partnership. Parents and the community supported Dr. Alonso and the central office team because they were empowered and involved in the decision making process throughout as real partners. The perspectives of parents were valued and parents were treated with respect (Mapp et al, 2015). Dr. Alonso also partnered with parents and the community in designing and creating new school choices with higher value propositions and greater flexibility to meet the needs and demands presented by students and families as alternatives. For example, Dr. Alonso created new Gifted and Talented as well as International Baccalaureate (IB) Programs as well as 6-12 schools to decrease the number of transitions students and families experience as they matriculate through the system. New options were also designed with flexible school hours and curriculum to re-engage 16 year olds for example who previously exited and dropped out of school as a means to provide greater incentives for staying engaged and completing high school.

Staying focused and ongoing adjustment. ?Successfully carrying out these interrelated strategies to achieve the expected outcomes meant staying focused and sticking to the goal and monitoring it. Dr. Alonso points out that there are many important demands and priorities that come up – all with valid claims. However, it is essential to stay focused on the major goal and target, continuously reassessing and evaluating and remaining open and flexible enough to make the necessary adjustments and changes needed. For Dr. Alonso, more important than a particular strategy is the focus on the goal and intended outcome and using a process that includes continuous assessment, being curious, asking good questions, and being a good listener. It is therefore essential to maintain good feedback loops with parents and the community and with people who will share how they see it, even if it differs from the present approach and will tell you why.?

Impact. ?In the end, from 2007-2013, the district had maintained its major focus and had made recognized progress in accomplishing its goals, though it knew much work remained to be done. For the first time in decades, the district had increased student enrollment which was higher upon Dr. Alonso’s departure compared to when his tenure began (Harvey, 2013). Under Dr. Alonso’s leadership, the cohort graduation rate increased, while suspensions and expulsions as well as the drop-out rate all significantly decreased (Johnson et al 2013; Furtick, 2013; Harvey, 2013; Durham, Stein, and Connolly, 2015). But beyond these data, even more indicative of the impact is the sustainability of the work in the City of Baltimore. Then Chief Academic Officer Sonja Santelises, still serves as the current CEO. Tisha Edwards, who served with Dr. Alonso as Chief of Staff and Interim CEO, led child programs for City Hall as Executive Director of the Mayor’s Office of Children and Family Success in Baltimore including the City’s response to the present and ongoing pandemic for children. And, Bill Ferguson, who served as Dr. Alonso’s special assistant, is now majority leader of the Maryland senate. This is reflective of the fact that the approach used built leaders and retains relevance nearly 15 years later today.

Concluding questions.?Reflective questions to consider for leaders at all levels of public school systems:

1. What might you have done differently and why?
2. What participation and decision making systems and structures are enacted in your agency to ensure that there is program consistency and continuity of the work for decades into the future for the long-term benefit of students?
3. How can agency work plans and actions ensure sustainability of approach and impact for decades into the future irrespective of future leadership?
4. What is the agency known for from the perspective of students who have matriculated through the system?
5. What structures exist to continuously improve this articulation and representation with greater intentionality, consistency of impact and predictability?

References

Durham, R., Stein, M., Connolly, F (November 2015). College Opportunities and Success: Baltimore City Graduates through the Class of 2014. Baltimore Education Research Consortium. Baltimore, Maryland.

Furtick, Katie. (December 11, 2013). Baltimore City School District Has Come a Long Way since 2007, but there’s still work to be done. Commentary. Reason Foundation. https://reason.org/commentary/baltimore-city-school-district-has/

A. Grossman, S. M. Johnson, E. Brookover. (April 2011). Baltimore City Public Schools: Implementing Bounded Autonomy (A). A joint initiative of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Harvard Business School. PEL-063. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/pelp/files/pel063p21.pdf

Harvey, Charlotte Bruce. (January 7, 2013). The Children's Crusader. Brown Alumni Magazine. https://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/articles/2013-01-07/the-childrens-crusader

Johnson, S. M., A. Grossman, S. E. Faller, G. Marietta. (June 2012). Baltimore City Public Schools: Implementing Bounded Autonomy (B). A joint initiative of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Harvard Business School. PEL-070. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/pelp/files/pel070p2.pdf

Johnson, S. M, J. J-H. Kim, G. Marietta, E. Faller, J. Noonan. (Aug. 2013). Career Pathways, Performance Pay, and Peer Review Promotion in Baltimore City Public Schools. A joint initiative of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Harvard Business School. PEL-071. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/pelp/files/pel071p2.pdf

Mapp, Karen and J. Noonan. (Aug. 2015). Organizing for Family and Community Engagement in the Baltimore City Public Schools. A joint initiative of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Harvard Business School. PEL-074. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/pelp/files/pel074.pdf

Vanourek, B and G. Vanourek (October 12, 2012). Turning around a school system. Interview with Dr. Andres Alonso, CEO, Baltimore City Public Schools. Leaders Speak Series. https://triplecrownleadership.com/interview-with-dr-andres-alons

Jared R. Lancer ? Copyright 2021