Urban Lead
Urban Lead
Urban Lead
Learning:
Urban School Leadership
Different in Kind and Degree
FUNDERS
This publication was made possible by grants from the Office of Educational Research and Im-
provement of the United States Department of Education, the Ford Foundation, the UPS Founda-
tion, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the MetLife Foundation. The statements made
and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.
ABOUT IEL
For more than thirty-five years, the Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL)a non-profit, non-
partisan organization based in Washington, D.C.has worked to help decision-makers achieve
better results for children and youth. At the heart of our effectiveness is our unique ability to bring
people together to identify and resolve issues across policy, program, and sector boundaries. As a
natural outgrowth of our work, we have created and continue to nurture diverse networks across
the country. Today, IEL is working to help individuals and institutions increase their capacity to
work together. We are building and supporting a cadre of diverse leaders, strengthening the capac-
ity of education and related systems, and informing the development and implementation of poli-
cies. Our efforts are focused through four programs of work: Developing Leaders; Strengthening
School-Family-Community Connections; Connecting and Improving Systems that Serve Children and
Youth; and Improving Preparation for Work.
Please visit our Web site at www.iel.org to learn more about IEL.
The author would like to express gratitude for the help of Mike Kirst, Craig Peck, Rob Reich,
Dorothy Shipps and Gary Yee in commenting on a draft of this brief.
2001 by the Institute of Educational Leadership, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this docu-
ment may be reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the publisher.
ISBN 0-937846-15-5
Leadership for
Student Learning:
Urban School Leadership
Different in Kind and Degree
Michael D. Usdan
Project Director
Senior Fellow, IEL
Note: A portion of this essay appeared in the May 30, 2001, edition of Education Week. In that
commentary, Dr. Cuban raised a few points about the complexities of urban school leadership that
are dealt with here. In addition, he had two recommendations in the article that are incorporated
here. Missing, however, from that Education Week commentary were the elaboration of the history,
contexts, and deeper political issues that appear in this brief.
Urban School Leadership:
Different in Kind and Degree
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REFERENCES 11
Nationalizing Education Reform
In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed a big city African American superintendent to
head the Department of Education, proposed an agenda for spending Title I funds that called for
major improvements in urban schools, and asked states to test all children each year between 3rd and
8th grades. Although concentrating on urban schools with high concentrations of poor children, the
President urged state and local leaders to raise academic achievement for all students. In doing so,
Bush took the current accountability-driven, standards-based school programs he had championed
for children in Texas and nationalized the reforms.
From this Republican president the commitment to standards-based reform and urban schools is
ironic, but it surprises few observers familiar with the history of American school reform. For the last
half-century the unrelenting criticism of public schools has been that they fail to teach basic literacy
or develop appropriate moral behavior and character, and they produce graduates with few mar-
ketable skills in the workplace. This has largely been a critique of urban schools in which the ethnic
and racial mix in these communities may change from one decade to the next, where less experienced
and under-qualified staff work in deteriorating physical plants that serve chronically poor neighbor-
hoods coping with drug abuse and crime.
This urban-based critiquerichly amplified in the mediahas been slapped onto all American
schools. Popular culture films and television shows from Blackboard Jungle (1955) with lethal adoles-
cents overwhelming a genial teacher to the television show Boston Public (2001) in which a teacher
disciplines his class with a gun have helped Americans to think that all urban schoolsexcept the
one down the blockare like those portrayed in the media. Few pundits point out that these depic-
tions of urban schools capture only a partial and exaggerated picture of what occurs in these schools.
Nor do these critics say that what is portrayed too often suggests that all schools are like those de-
picted in film or television.
Equating inadequate urban schools with all public schools has encouraged sloppy thinking about
American education. When it comes to criticism of American schools, for the last half-century, the
urban tail has wagged the public school dog.
Pause for a moment and reflect on the flawed logic of those who tar all public schools with the
urban brush. For example, if all American schools are lousy, including ones in cities, how can they
have produced graduates who have entered and succeeded at colleges and universities which are
highly admired by the rest of the world? And, how can the critics also ignore the rise in American
economic productivity, global competitiveness and unrivaled prosperityincreases that have surged
across the nation in the 1990s and that stem from those very same inadequately prepared high school
and college graduates?
Fusing fears over particular urban schools with pervasive criticism of the entire public school sys-
tem badly biases thinking about reform. When the U.S. Secretary of Education, supporting the Pres-
idents No Child Left Behind plan, writes that anyone who opposes annual testing of children is
an apologist for a broken system of education, he equates reaching the hard to teacheducation
shorthand for economically disadvantaged, limited English-proficiency, and special education stu-
dents, or those concentrated in urban schoolswith reaching all suburban and rural children
(Paige, 2001).
Whats wrong with crossing the city line and aiming for all children? First, the merging of criti-
cism of poor, often racially isolated, schools with all schools ignores the substantial achievements of
The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.
Ordering Information
Single copies of this report are available free of charge. For all orders, contact Mary Podmostko via
e-mail (podmostkomiel.org), by fax (202) 872-4050, or in writing at the address below. Copies can
also be downloaded from www.iel.org.