Regarding "Solving Education: Principals as CEOs", Sheila Klein remarks:

"Here is some background on teacher employment. Decades ago there were very good reasons why teachers were part of a city civil service employment system and not hired and fired by each school principal. Primarily, this system ensured that all teachers would have to achieve minimum standards of education, and knowledge of subject matter and could not get jobs through cronyism. In addition, through teacher tenure, communities were assured that the election of a new mayor would not lead to the wholesale replacement of school administrators and teachers in an effort to repay loyal supporters with jobs, whether they were truly qualified to teach or not. This was certainly a relevant issue during the thirties, the era of the depression; the forties, when returning GI's needed the jobs held by women; and the fifties, when the search for "communist sympathizers" which decimated the film industry might have had a similar effect on the teaching profession. So, at least in some parts of the country, particularly NYC, it is not the union, but the civil service system and tenure that prevent principals from firing teachers without extensive documentation of wrongdoing (once they are tenured) not just ineptitude. Before a teacher is tenured, he or she is employed at will and can be fired very easily. Now, if you want to look at the employment history of teachers in the nineteenth century, reread Ichabod Crane or Silas Marner. Teachers were employed at will, and it was often the obligation of the townspeople to house them in their own homes. Just think about that Algebra teacher of yours sharing a room with you!"

Jordan Snedcof chimes in on "Solving Education: Principals as CEOs":

"The limousine liberal position against school vouchers is absolutely infuriating. According to a study by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, 60% of blacks support vouchers. This number is even higher for blacks under 50. Many elite Democrats oppose vouchers for several reasons, but mostly because they feel it is a band-aid solution which ignores the much more intractable problems in public schools. However, opting out of public schools (or moving to suburbs with strong public schools) is precisely the step that limousine liberals take with their own kids in order to avoid sending them to schools with these intractable problems.

"For some reason, the personal policy these families employ to exempt their kids from the difficulties of bad schools is fine for them, but not permissible for poor families who can't afford to send their kids to private schools. So poor kids stay in failing schools while policy elites - whose kids are at Sidwell Friends- attempt to develop a holistic approach to education reform that will fix every school.

"I know vouchers aren't going to solve every problem, and a $2500 voucher isn't enough to send a kid to Harvard Westlake, Choate Rosemary Hall, or another prestigious school with a long name. However, if a family feels that sending their kid to a small, no-name private school is better for her than attending P.S. 107, then why should we stop them? Even with the interesting ideas of Senator Kerry, one Federal education bill is not going to heal all public schools. Most education decisions are made at the state and local level. When a policy like vouchers is supported at the local level by the parents who most need it, and studies in Milwaukee and elsewhere show promising early returns, politicians and policy elites should stop the hand-wringing and do what is right. Again, if well-off Democrats, like my family and maybe yours, had to keep their children in failing schools, there would be a freakin PTA revolt, but I guess inner-city kids will just have to wait and suffer until Kerry and others get the guts to say what they say in private to the public at large."

And Stephen Gruman writes:

"I have taught public high school and junior high for 8 years and can represent many teachers when I say we are incredibly tired of being yo yo's and whipsawed by the latest public opinion polls and sundry people armchair quarterbacking about something form which they have no experience. Once again your statement like others' said lets run the educational process like a business and gave no real proposals. Yes we can improve education here area few off the cuff proposals;

"* Pay teachers enough so they don't go home worrying about paying the bills and so that men, still the primary breadwinners, stay in the career more and give students more diverse role models.

"* Get the parents involved. Parenting skills are very poor in society and getting worse and teachers are expected to get kids to be active, involved, courteous, disciplined learners while society and parents eat on the run, kids sit on their butt far too much (have you seen the growth rate in passive activity and in obesity among modern youth?). Schools need to be able to demand of parents that we partner together and that parents get involved and hold their children accountable.

"* Get lawsuits off teachers backs. Field trips, camping trips -- they have become a logistical nightmare. Have dissections in the classroom? Parents need to approve so that Johnny doesn't cry/suit from having seen a sheep's heart. Tutor students at lunch/after school? Sure just make sure you are not a male teacher with females - a dumb move in the current climate.

"* Quit telling kids they are failures if they don't want to go to college and sit at a desk all day. We have next to no trade programs in education. Students who don't want to go to college are essentially held hostage in schools that offer them next to nothing.

"* Stop social promotion. Teachers don't want it they are leaned on hard to promote students and give good grades. Therein lies a fault with many 'incentive based programs' they encourage teachers to teach to tests and much worse to inflate grades. Testing is not bad but teaching is and always will be as much an art as a science."

Josh Ebersole has more thoughts on "Solving Education: Principals as CEOs":

"I'm not to keen on charter schools. I'm more along the lines of Bill Simon re. decentralizing the school system and perhaps reducing districts to 5,000 students or less. This tug of war between the teachers' union and the supers is driving me nuts! It seems they spend so much time and money arguing with each other. In the end, it's the proverbial question: "Aren't you guys forgetting kids?"

For that reason, the idea of seriously decentralizing the school system works with me. This would remove a large chunk of the state and county school bureaucracy, redirecting power to much smaller districts. (Of course, there's the risk of mismanagement, blah blah, but change is accompanied by risks and the notion that anything other than what we have now would be better) These local districts can focus on what they want ... and ... would give parents a better opportunity to affect school policies for their districts without having to deal with district and statewide policies.

"At the end of the day, charters will probably win. I say this with reservations. While I appreciate the concept of teaching CEOs how to run charter schools, there is still a serious problem with oversight evidenced by the increasing number of scandals surrounding charter schools being run by con artists. I think the concept of public education is a good one. Just because things are not running well does not necessarily mean that we need to privatize everything. The world seems to be waking up to the latter notion these days as an increasing number of problems have arisen among public-sector operations privatized during the 1990s. There remains plenty of options for fixing the current public school system before we privatize schools and I don't think we're effectively examining these alternate routes. Anyhow ... I love your newsletter."

Also regarding the article "Solving Education: Principals as CEOs", Jonathan Katzman writes:

"Ah, to treat schools like companies and principals like CEOs -- that would just be amazing. My mom is a principal of a K-8 school in Brookline, MA. It amazes me how little flexibility she has. Forget about even the ability to fire someone, she can't even hand out a Starbucks gift certificate as a reward to a teacher. Her ability to manage is incredibly handicapped by the various rules (many union driven, some not). Giving a principal and teachers more freedom and flexibility would make an incredible difference in kid's educations."

Regarding the mention of Ryze, Ryze CEO Adrian Scott writes:

"Thanks for the praise on Summation. Ryze grew 5% in one day based on your article."

(Write Auren your thoughts: auren@summation.net)