I spent the first half of my working life in the private sector, and the second half in the public schools.
The differences are legion.
In the private sector, if there is general agreement that something is stupid, someone does something about it. In the public schools, the response is usually, “It is what it is.”
In the private sector, stupidity can’t be tolerated. There’s just too much at stake. Companies that tolerate stupidity, or are slow to deal with it, go out of business.
Public schools have no such worries. They have a monopoly on taxpayer dollars, and any competition for those tax dollars is viewed as something akin to a capital crime.
Good, bad, or something in between, public schools are here to stay, and they know it, which makes tolerating stupidity much easier to do.
In the private sector, people who recognize and highlight inefficiency and ineptitude are highly valued, and employees who demonstrate an aptitude for rooting it out are rewarded.
In the public school system, those who have the audacity to point out that something is not working or doesn’t make sense are chastised for being disloyal. The prevalent attitude is, employees should leave such things to the people in charge who know best. To voice a contrary opinion is considered bad form and impertinent. Such employees are not valued; they are punished. They are seen as a problem that needs to be dealt with.
In the public schools, as in all government-run operations, the best way to advance is to simply do what you’re told and religiously adhere to policies that were written in advance to cover every possible scenario. Leaders are not paid to think. They’re paid to follow the rules.
No matter how inappropriate a decision may be given the circumstances, policy is policy, and school leaders risk their careers if they make a decision that is contrary to policy.
As a result, most public school employees slavishly follow policy whether the facts suggest they should or not. Follow the policy and you’re safe. You cannot be criticized. But if you deviate from policy, don’t expect anyone to back you up. Independent thinking and risk-taking are simply not tolerated.
In the private sector, risk takers are rewarded because they are the people who make a difference and drive an organization forward. They are recruited, cultivated and coveted because businesses operate in a world of fierce competition, and it is almost always the quality of their employees that distinguishes them from their competitors. Public schools don’t have to worry about such mundane things.
But leadership is not about opening a policy book to find out what to do. Anybody can do that. You don’t need good judgement, you just need to know how to read.
In the private sector, good judgment is essential, and leaders are paid to know when to break the rules.
In terms of compensation, it’s hard to imagine a more counterproductive strategy than one which does not reward performance in any way. Good scores, bad scores, thriving students, struggling students, school leader or negative influence, nothing a teacher or an administrator does has any impact on how much money they make or will make. Right now, our compensation strategy for teachers rewards living another year, and that’s about it.
The private sector pays for performance. The more competent you are, the more you’re worth. The private sector recognizes that some people are more valuable to an organization than others — unless, of course, a union is involved. In that case, distinctions based on performance are seriously frowned upon, if allowed at all.
Look, there are a lot of great people working in public schools, but nothing about the environment in which they work is designed to maximize their value or liberate their talent, and when teachers come to that realization, far too many throw in the towel to pursue careers elsewhere, careers that will acknowledge their worth in both tangible and intangible ways — an environment that says, “We value you,” with more than just empty words.
Public school systems are huge government bureaucracies run by bureaucrats. Performance, either by the teachers they hire or the students they teach, is not their priority, no matter what they say. Oh, they talk a good game, but go work for a school system and you’ll learn soon enough that the bureaucracy exists to feed itself. Self-preservation, not excellence, is the primary motivation.
School bureaucracies will make tweaks around the edges when the pressure grows great enough, but to believe anything bigger than that is possible is simply wishful thinking. There are just too many people vested in the status quo to ever expect real, meaningful change.
Unfortunately, it is the children who pay the biggest price for a school system’s intransigence.
David T. Kearns, former deputy secretary of education and chairman and CEO of Xerox Corporation, captured the current state of affairs well when he said, “Today’s public education system is a failed monopoly: bureaucratic, rigid and in unsteady control of dissatisfied captive markets.” Kearns said this over 30 years ago, and things have only gotten worse since.
Chris Roemer resides in Finksburg. He can be contacted at chrisroemer1960@gmail.com.
