New York is having trouble making good on the mayor's pledge to shake up the leadership at failing schools. Last fall, report cards were issued to the city's schools--and 52 flunked. Since then, new principals have been installed at 14 of them, five have been closed, and another is slated for closing. So: 14+5+1=20 schools where something substantive has been done (though I do wonder whether closing a school can be called substantive--and whether it's not in itself a profound if necessary kind of failure). Twenty is a far cry from 52, and the number of schools marking major changes really ought to be 52.

From the New York Times:

Whether the principals who left 'did it of their own volition, or were encouraged to make that decision or if some of them saw the writing on the wall, we don't actually know,' said Chris Cerf, the deputy chancellor who oversees personnel issues. 'The fact is that there were real-world consequences in almost half of these schools.'

In the fine print, the Times notes that there are a few cases of schools that had installed new principals just as the report cards came out--so it makes sense to give those new leaders a chance to actually lead. And it's certainly true that simply firing principals is not going to fix broken schools--and especially when, as has happened here, ineffective principals simply go off and become administrators at other schools. And of course there is the perennial question--not my focus today--of whether assessing effectiveness in terms of test scores is a fair way to go.

Still, it does give one pause to learn that "most of the principals at the 52 failing schools--including several who have since departed--were rated 'proficient.' Seven of them earned 'well developed,' the highest mark on the review." If their excellence doesn't translate into an effective school, is it really excellent? If a tree falls in the woods ... ?

It also gives one pause to think about what seems to have counted as follow-through for a number of failing schools: "Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein met with roughly half of the principals whose schools received an 'F' and consulted community superintendents and other mid-level administrators to decide what should be done at individual schools." Conversation as cure? It doesn't work in psychoanalysis and it's sure not going to work with the school system. It would be helpful to know what kinds of accountability measures are in place to ensure that conversation leads to swift, decisive, and demonstrably effective action.

And, finally, there is this: "Of those principals who left their schools since June 2007, four are working as administrators in other city schools; 13 no longer work in the school system; and one is considered an 'excessed' administrator: still on the payroll but without a permanent position in the department, officials said, earning a total of about $19 million a year."

Can that possibly be right? A single benched ex-principal making $19 million on the taxpayers' dime?