Public Schools in the Twin Cities: Principals Not Needed to Run School Sites
For roughly twenty-five years, Twin Cities public schools have rotated principals, launched initiatives, renamed improvement plans, and held strategic retreats, while the core student achievement data has barely flinched. Reading gaps remain. Math proficiency drifts sideways. Graduation disparities persist. Apparently, what we needed all along was just one more principal with a fresh slogan. This OpEd argues that the traditional principal-centered model has not produced transformational results and likely will not. Instead of recycling leadership titles, it proposes transferring instructional authority to high-performing teacher-leaders supported by real-time data systems and algorithmic accountability. If the numbers haven’t changed in a quarter century, perhaps the org chart should.
By Don Allen, Journal of A Black Teacher (2026) Editorial Opinion
Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN…Straight talk: In many public schools in the Twin Cities, the role of the principal as the instructional leader no longer exists. Rather, the role has become a managerial, reactive, politically driven position. Meanwhile, the people who drive student achievement in the classroom, the teachers, are several rungs below the decision-making authority.
If the goal of public schools in the Twin Cities is student achievement in reading, literacy, mathematics, executive function, and preparation for post-secondary success, the structure of public schools must change to center on the people who drive these outcomes most: the instructional expert in the classroom.
In the current structure, the role of the principal as the leader of the public schools in the Twin Cities was designed for the industrial model of public education. In the industrial model of public education, there must be a command center, a singular pace for all students, and a supervisor who oversees the entire operation. This model of public education no longer works in today’s complex academic landscape. Public schools in the Twin Cities require rapid data interpretation, differentiated instruction, adaptive scheduling, and a continuous intervention cycle. No single person, no matter how good the leader, can possibly monitor and direct every classroom in the public schools in the Twin Cities.
The solution to the problem of student achievement in the Twin Cities' public schools is not to find a “better” principal. Rather, the solution requires a decentralized model of instructional leadership.
Here’s the model.
It’s called the Distributed Instructional Leadership and Accountability Model (DILAM). In DILAM, the classroom Instructional Lead, elected or selected based on demonstrated performance, assumes the Role. Instructional Leads in the public schools in the Twin Cities are not ceremonial positions; they are the heads of their departments. Rather, Instructional Leads become the site-based executive in the classroom. Each site in the Twin Cities public schools selects five to seven Instructional Leads based on student achievement, peer evaluation, design competency, and demonstrated ability to mentor adults. Instructional Leads in the public schools in the Twin Cities serve for two years, with renewal based on demonstrated outcomes.
Their roles are well defined:
• Curriculum implementation fidelity
• Weekly micro-observations and coaching cycles
• Every two weeks, data reviews via standardized growth dashboards
• Intervention groups for students not meeting proficiency
• Pacing guides align with district benchmarks
• Instructional effectiveness via shared performance rubrics
The principal, if present, becomes a Site Operations Manager. They manage compliance, facilities, budgetary approvals, and district-level communications. They do not control instructional direction unless data shows systemic failure. Instructional direction now belongs to the leads.
Now, let's move to accountability.
This system utilizes leadership assessment and algorithmic monitoring tools, not to replace human judgment, but to make those decisions faster.
Each classroom contributes to a data dashboard, one that is fed weekly. It aggregates:
• Formative assessment data
• Reading level progress
• Assignment completion rates
• Attendance
• Behavioral disruption
• Student growth percentiles
An algorithm is in place to raise a red flag for any abnormal data, such as a sudden drop in understanding, a plateau in writing development, a wide spread in grading, or attendance-related dips in student performance.
The Instructional Leads automatically receive notifications. Within 72 hours, they conduct a diagnostic assessment that includes a classroom observation, student work sampling, and teacher conferencing. Interventions begin immediately, never waiting for a quarterly evaluation.
This is not a surveillance state. This is a responsiveness state.
If three consecutive cycles of intervention do not produce improvement, then the system goes to the Site Operations Manager and district-level academic review. Decisions become evidence-based, not personality-driven.
Skeptics might argue that algorithms lack nuance. Correct. But that's why algorithms merely identify patterns. It's up to humans to interpret. Without pattern identification, leaders are left to act blindly or too late.
Additionally, the performance review process also changes under the DILAM approach. No longer does a single principal conduct annual performance reviews; instead, 30-day performance reviews are conducted by the Instructional Leads and are tied to student growth indicators. Teachers are also provided with immediate feedback loops. Professional development also becomes targeted rather than generic.
What about the budget? How does the financial side of the equation work?
The financial side of the equation involves allocating the principal's current salary overhead to instructional stipends. No longer does a single principal make a six-figure salary and have little classroom face time; rather, the budget can support multiple teacher leaders who are highly effective in the classroom.
What about discipline? How does the student culture work? How does family engagement work?
These are also included within the lead position. One Instructional Lead might oversee the metrics for school culture, including referral rates, restorative conference rates, and attendance recovery strategies, while another might oversee alignment in family communication.
The question isn’t whether the teacher can lead, but rather whether districts are willing to trust the expertise that already exists within them.
Twin Cities districts are struggling to close literacy and math gaps, address enrollment swings, and manage principal turnover. The current approach of rotating principals in and out of schools every three to five years hasn’t fixed the problem, and in some districts, three principals have rotated in and out of a single district in the past decade.
However, the one constant within the district has been the teacher.
They know the kids, the neighborhoods, and the generational patterns of academic achievement.
They are the ones who need to be empowered.
Under this approach, the principal becomes optional, not necessarily eliminated, but rather a liaison position and a compliance position within the district, approving the budgets and ensuring the alignment with the policy, but not necessarily the learning leader within the district.
This approach also eliminates the principal search and selection process, saving the district thousands of dollars each year, and also eliminates the principal evaluation process, saving the district thousands more each year.
If the data from multiple classrooms demonstrates a pattern of declining growth percentiles over two semesters, district intervention occurs. This could involve the temporary assignment of an external Academic Stabilization Team, consisting of high-performing teacher leaders from other sites.
The district becomes a network of instructional ecosystems rather than a series of isolated principal islands.
This cultural shift requires a tremendous effort. Teacher preparation programs must now include instruction in leadership analytics. Data literacy becomes a required skill. Peer coaching certification becomes a standardized process.
However, the reward is a real-time academic governance system.
Students no longer have to wait for a change in leadership to see a change in the district. Teachers no longer have to wait for an annual evaluation to receive direction. District leaders no longer have to wait for a principal’s report to understand a school's performance.
The school becomes a living feedback system.
This model does not coddle teachers. It professionalizes them. Instructional Leads who fail to deliver growth over two cycles lose their lead status. This model is a performance-driven, not tenure-driven, system.
The model's implication is obvious: schools should be run by those closest to the outcomes.
Industrial hierarchies may have been the correct structure in the past, when the primary goal was compliance and order. In today’s world, adaptability and accuracy are more important. Principals can’t monitor 40 classrooms with depth. Instructional Leads can monitor five classrooms with depth.
The Twin Cities have the people with the skills. They lack the structural courage.
Imagine the site. Reimagine the authority. Reimagine the use of analytics. Replace the hierarchy with a distributed instructional command structure.
Public schools no longer need principals to lead the site.
Public schools need instructional architects who are already in the room.
The solution to the problem of student achievement in the Twin Cities' public schools is not to find a “better” principal. Rather, the solution requires a decentralized model of instructional leadership.
Here’s the model.
It’s called the Distributed Instructional Leadership and Accountability Model (DILAM). In DILAM, the classroom Instructional Lead, elected or selected based on demonstrated performance, assumes the Role. Instructional Leads in the public schools in the Twin Cities are not ceremonial positions; they are the heads of their departments. Rather, Instructional Leads become the site-based executive in the classroom. Each site in the Twin Cities public schools selects five to seven Instructional Leads based on student achievement, peer evaluation, design competency, and demonstrated ability to mentor adults. Instructional Leads in the public schools in the Twin Cities serve for two years, with renewal based on demonstrated outcomes.
Their roles are well defined:
• Curriculum implementation fidelity
• Weekly micro-observations and coaching cycles
• Every two weeks, data reviews via standardized growth dashboards
• Intervention groups for students not meeting proficiency
• Pacing guides align with district benchmarks
• Instructional effectiveness via shared performance rubrics
The principal, if present, becomes a Site Operations Manager. They manage compliance, facilities, budgetary approvals, and district-level communications. They do not control instructional direction unless data shows systemic failure. Instructional direction now belongs to the leads.
Now, let's move to accountability.
This system utilizes leadership assessment and algorithmic monitoring tools, not to replace human judgment, but to make those decisions faster.
Each classroom contributes to a data dashboard, one that is fed weekly. It aggregates:
• Formative assessment data
• Reading level progress
• Assignment completion rates
• Attendance
• Behavioral disruption
• Student growth percentiles
An algorithm is in place to raise a red flag for any abnormal data, such as a sudden drop in understanding, a plateau in writing development, a wide spread in grading, or attendance-related dips in student performance.
The Instructional Leads automatically receive notifications. Within 72 hours, they conduct a diagnostic assessment that includes a classroom observation, student work sampling, and teacher conferencing. Interventions begin immediately, never waiting for a quarterly evaluation.
This is not a surveillance state. This is a responsiveness state.
If three consecutive cycles of intervention do not produce improvement, then the system goes to the Site Operations Manager and district-level academic review. Decisions become evidence-based, not personality-driven.
Skeptics might argue that algorithms lack nuance. Correct. But that's why algorithms merely identify patterns. It's up to humans to interpret. Without pattern identification, leaders are left to act blindly or too late.
Additionally, the performance review process also changes under the DILAM approach. No longer does a single principal conduct annual performance reviews; instead, 30-day performance reviews are conducted by the Instructional Leads and are tied to student growth indicators. Teachers are also provided with immediate feedback loops. Professional development also becomes targeted rather than generic.
What about the budget? How does the financial side of the equation work?
The financial side of the equation involves allocating the principal's current salary overhead to instructional stipends. No longer does a single principal make a six-figure salary and have little classroom face time; rather, the budget can support multiple teacher leaders who are highly effective in the classroom.
What about discipline? How does the student culture work? How does family engagement work?
These are also included within the lead position. One Instructional Lead might oversee the metrics for school culture, including referral rates, restorative conference rates, and attendance recovery strategies, while another might oversee alignment in family communication.
The question isn’t whether the teacher can lead, but rather whether districts are willing to trust the expertise that already exists within them.
Twin Cities districts are struggling to close literacy and math gaps, address enrollment swings, and manage principal turnover. The current approach of rotating principals in and out of schools every three to five years hasn’t fixed the problem, and in some districts, three principals have rotated in and out of a single district in the past decade.
However, the one constant within the district has been the teacher.
They know the kids, the neighborhoods, and the generational patterns of academic achievement.
They are the ones who need to be empowered.
Under this approach, the principal becomes optional, not necessarily eliminated, but rather a liaison position and a compliance position within the district, approving the budgets and ensuring the alignment with the policy, but not necessarily the learning leader within the district.
This approach also eliminates the principal search and selection process, saving the district thousands of dollars each year, and also eliminates the principal evaluation process, saving the district thousands more each year.
If the data from multiple classrooms demonstrates a pattern of declining growth percentiles over two semesters, district intervention occurs. This could involve the temporary assignment of an external Academic Stabilization Team, consisting of high-performing teacher leaders from other sites.
The district becomes a network of instructional ecosystems rather than a series of isolated principal islands.
This cultural shift requires a tremendous effort. Teacher preparation programs must now include instruction in leadership analytics. Data literacy becomes a required skill. Peer coaching certification becomes a standardized process.
However, the reward is a real-time academic governance system.
Students no longer have to wait for a change in leadership to see a change in the district. Teachers no longer have to wait for an annual evaluation to receive direction. District leaders no longer have to wait for a principal’s report to understand a school's performance.
The school becomes a living feedback system.
This model does not coddle teachers. It professionalizes them. Instructional Leads who fail to deliver growth over two cycles lose their lead status. This model is a performance-driven, not tenure-driven, system.
The model's implication is obvious: schools should be run by those closest to the outcomes.
Industrial hierarchies may have been the correct structure in the past, when the primary goal was compliance and order. In today’s world, adaptability and accuracy are more important. Principals can’t monitor 40 classrooms with depth. Instructional Leads can monitor five classrooms with depth.
The Twin Cities have the people with the skills. They lack the structural courage.
Imagine the site. Reimagine the authority. Reimagine the use of analytics. Replace the hierarchy with a distributed instructional command structure.
Public schools no longer need principals to lead the site.
Public schools need instructional architects who are already in the room.
Comments
Post a Comment