Whenever I speak about proven programs in education, someone always brings up what they consider a damning point. “Sure, there are programs proven to work. But it all comes down to the principal. A great principal can get any program to work. A weak principal can’t get any program to work. So if it’s all about the quality of principals, what do proven programs add?”
To counter this idea, consider Danica Patrick, one of the winningest NASCAR racecar drivers a few years ago. If you gave Danica and a less talented driver identical cars on an identical track, Danica was sure to win.
But instead of the Formula 1 racecar she drove, what if you gave Danica a Ford Fiesta? Obviously, she wouldn’t have a chance. It takes a great car and a great driver to win NASCAR races.
Back to school principals, the same principle applies. Of course it is true that great principals get great results. But they get far better results if they are implementing effective programs.
In high-quality evaluations, you might have 50 schools assigned at random, either to use an experimental program or to a control group that continues doing what they’ve always done. There would usually be 25 of each in such a study. Because of random assignment, there are likely to be the same number of great principals, average principals, and less than average principals in each group. Differences in principal skills cannot be the reason for any differences in student outcomes, because of this distribution of great principals across experimental and control groups. All other factors, such as the initial achievement levels of schools, socioeconomic factors, and talents of teachers, are also balanced out by random assignment. They cannot cause one group (experimental) to do better than another (control), because they are essentially equal across the two sets of schools.
It can be true that when a developer or publisher shows off the extraordinary success of a school or two, the exceptional outcomes may be due to a combination of a great program and a great principal. Danica Patrick in a superior car would really dominate a less skilled driver in a less powerful car. The same is true of programs in schools. Great programs led by great principals (with great staffs) can produce extraordinary outcomes, probably beyond what the great principals could have done on their own.
If you doubt this, consider Danica Patrick in her Ford Fiesta!
Photo credits: Left: By Sarah Stierch [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)], from Wikimedia Commons; Right: By Morio [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], from Wikimedia Commons
This blog was developed with support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation.
Robert Slavin's Blog 
Reblogged this on From experience to meaning… and commented:
Great metaphor!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on kadir kozan.
LikeLike
Except the analogy is totally misleading. It is not a fair comparison. It is judging the effectiveness of driving the Ford Fiesta using criteria it was never designed to meet. You might as well judge the effectiveness of driving the racing car on criteria it was never designed to meet such as miles per gallon or carrying four people safely or how much luggage it can transport.
More importantly education research doesn’t prove anything. Scientific research is concerned with probability not proof. Trustworthy evidence may indicate that particular practice might work but it cannot guarantee it will work. High quality education research sheds light on what happened at a given time in a given setting. It is impossible to predict beyond doubt that the same will occur again at a different time in a different setting.
LikeLike