by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader
Over the course of my forty-year teaching career, which included twenty-six years as a department chair and ten as Curriculum Coordinator, I worked with a significant number of school administrators and district leaders. This is the second in a series highlighting those individuals who in my opinion were the most effective in their particular roles. The goal of these analyses is to illuminate those qualities that make professionals in these critical positions successful and maximize their positive influence in a school.
The job of a district-level instructional coordinator is extremely challenging. It is a role that must weave together the requirements, goals and needs of remarkably disparate groups. The rules and regulations of the state and district school boards must be implemented and the goals of the system’s leadership team must be accomplished while assisting two dozen different high schools establish programs that serve very different student bodies. Moreover, all of these tasks must be performed from a position that possesses little actual authority. But Tom Nuttal, District Coordinator of Math Instruction, overcame all of these obstacles to become a significant contributor to the success of math education throughout the system.
What attributes made him the most effective district supervisor?
Tom believed that all of his responsibilities were equally important. The previously defined job description becomes infinitely easier if the component of meeting the needs of each individual school is ignored. Creating programs that only satisfy state and local educational leadership is relatively simple when compared with creating plans that work in a wide-ranging set of circumstances. Tom understood and appreciated the reality that every school is unique. He believed that a “one size fits all” approach where every math program is the same could make for wonderfully simplified, impressive power point presentations, but lack the necessary complexity and flexibility to address the educational challenges inherent in a diverse school system. The less affluent schools were at particular risk in such situations. Tom strongly encouraged the creation and implementation of a variety of methods to improve student success. He did far more than simply talk about such innovation. He helped put into practice a unique approach to Algebra 1 at my school which was predicated on the fact that we had the largest ELL population in the system. When our program began to demonstrate significant progress he looked for ways to utilize some of its fundamental principles to help other schools. This attitude was in stark contrast to many others in similar positions who preferred simplistic answers for complex issues. Tom did not feel that student success should be borne entirely by the teachers, but that sometimes the district’s program may need to be altered to enable those teachers to be effective.
Tom took a pro-active approach to educational change. Anticipating state standardized end-of-course exams years before their implementation, he created a district Algebra 1 exam to be administered to every student at the conclusion of the course. This testing helped teachers and administrators prepare for the eventual creation of barrier state exams. It also served as an excellent measure of student achievement throughout each building and the system. As is so often the case, the reception for this “extra burden” at the end of the year was less than enthusiastic but Tom was adamant and as a result many students and teachers benefitted years later. He also realized that technology was going to become a large part of the educational scene. While others waited for funding to purchase computers, he found creative methods to utilize existing monies to ensure that math teachers were at the forefront in terms of hardware and training. When it was obvious that graphing calculators were going to revolutionize math education, Tom acquired funding to train large numbers of teachers in the effective use of these devices.
Tom was not averse to challenging the educational leaders in the district. When the concept of “block” scheduling was being favorably discussed by the system’s policymakers, Tom recognized that such a program could be detrimental for many math students. He spent countless hours mobilizing discussions that would reveal some of the negative aspects of this type of schedule. Likewise, when the district was discussing a new set of grading and reporting regulations that would result in diminishing teachers’ control of their classroom grading policies he used many of his department chair meetings to explain the potential repercussions. His results were mixed. Block scheduling became a reality but the grassroots resistance to the new grading system resulted in a rollback of these potentially misguided policies. Win or lose, his first loyalty was always to the success of the students and the integrity of the curriculum.
Tom was a pragmatist. Whether he agreed or disagreed with a district initiative he worked hard to make the implementation as smooth as possible. My favorite Tom Nuttal story revolved around the block scheduling debate. He fought the good fight but when it became obvious the new plan was inevitable he swallowed his bruised pride and announced that every district workshop in the future would be ninety minutes in length—replicating a typical “block” thus giving teachers a preview of what their educational future would look like.
Tom treated teachers as professionals. Every year he would apply for and receive federal grants that would enable him to take large numbers of district math teachers to national math meetings. These exposures gave educators throughout the system an enlightened view of math education from a national perspective. In addition such trips to large conventions gave teachers an opportunity to network with each other much as professionals in other occupations do on a regular basis.