Executive Director's Report: Payzant's success in Boston was a team effort

For teachers and principals, there is a mix of emotions, too. There is relief that 24/7 work days are replaced by vacation or “normal” work days of seven to 10 hours. There is relief in having a small breathing space; fewer “major crises”; and time to plan, assess, and regroup for next year. And there is angst over what might happen to many children during the summer months -- that they might lose what they had learned and might face a more dangerous environment and the threat of gangs and worse.

For retiring Boston Superintendent Tom Payzant, the end of the year is also likely to bring a mix of emotions.

His 11-year tenure is marked by great progress. Student achievement rose, and the district made instruction its top priority.

Payzant moved low-performing administrators out, nurtured high-performing administrators, and created an in-house teacher training program called the Boston Teacher Residency.

Nineteen new, charter-like pilot schools were opened in partnership with the teacher union, and Payzant attracted private funding estimated at $100 million over 10 years.

But wait -- stop this eulogy. The picture is only half painted. I read all of the tributes and the wonderful, well-deserved accolades about Tom Payzant, but nobody has talked about a key reason for his effectiveness as a leader -- a great school committee.

OK, you’re saying. There goes Bryant on her school board kick. But I’m serious. (And from my many conversations with Tom over the years, I know he would agree.) The Boston School Committee, under Elizabeth Reilinger’s thoughtful and steady hand, has steered the district, along with Payzant, in some strategic and deliberate ways.

Coincidentally, I came to NSBA in 1996, one year after Tom joined the Boston Public Schools. I was impressed from the start. And, as a Massachusetts native who had lived and worked in the state for many years and attended Simmons College in Boston, I care deeply about the city (and the Red Sox).

I watched, interacted with, and listened to the lessons the Boston school committee has learned. And Tom has both guided the work of the committee members and been guided by them. So this 11-year odyssey is not just about a great leader; it’s about a great leadership team: Tom Payzant and the Boston school committee.

How did this come about? What enabled this really good board-superintendent team to focus on student achievement like a laser beam? What enabled Tom Payzant to be so effective? What kept the district faculty and staff on task, matching instruction to student achievement goals, keeping the union focused on similar goals, adopting programs only after having tested them, and engaging parents and the community -- usually at the right moment?

Sure, it was Payzant’s skill and knowledge acquired from years of experience leading school systems in Tacoma, Wash.; Springfield, Pa.; Eugene, Ore.; Oklahoma City; and San Diego that contributed to his success in Boston. But a dedicated, smart, strategically recruited school committee had a lot to do with it, too.

Here are some facts: The school committee has had just two chairs in the past 11 years, and Liz Reilinger has been chair for nine years. The long tenure of the seven committee members has led to a strong sense of continuity. Four members have served for more than five years, and another member has served nearly four years.

When I talked with Reil­inger about her experience as chair, she was as deferential as Tom Payzant was when I spoke with him last year. Both talked about the superintendent-school committee team that worked together to achieve the goals they both developed. There were no “I” statements.

In fact, Liz told me the committee’s role “is to keep the noise out of the agenda.” She was most proud of the times when she and Tom were able to warn the committee members about a controversial issue, such as the possibility of school closings, that they knew would have major ramifications. Through good communications, they averted a PR crisis, and more important, a real crisis among members of the school committee.

In Boston, the school committee is appointed by the mayor. But the mayor can only appoint members from a list of candidates recommended by a 13-member Citizens Nominating Panel.

We have two different forms of selecting school board members in the United States: 95 percent of school board members are elected through an open democratic process, and the rest are appointed. Having a mayor appoint school board members doesn’t always work. But in Boston, where the process is driven by community engagement, it has led to an effective school committee.

So as this school year draws to a close, I will add my applause to that of countless others. Thank you, Tom Payzant. Thank you, Liz Reilinger and the entire Boston school committee team.

Thank you for leading the Boston public schools in a respectful, collaborative, focused way. Thank you for not falling prey to the “I” battles (“I’m more important and powerful than you”) and for being a model board-superintendent team focused on student learning and engaging the community to achieve that goal.