Hire Ground | Episode 19: We Know What to Do. We Just Don't Stick With It.

The Education System has a consistency problem. In this episode of Hire Ground, Christina Greenberg and Josh Czupryk sit down with a true titan of the field: Michael Moore. With a career spanning 52 years—from the classroom to the superintendent’s office to national leadership strategy—Moore has seen every initiative, reform movement, and pendulum swing the industry has produced.

What emerges from this conversation isn't a simple trip down memory lane. Instead, it is a clear-eyed interrogation of why K12 leadership feels more fragile today than at any point in the last half-century. Moore and Greenberg dive into the "hard math" of sustainability and the structural crises currently threatening the teacher pipeline.

In this episode, we explore:

• The Principalship Paradox: Moore contends that campus-level leadership has become so complex that even a seasoned superintendent might struggle to run a single building today. We discuss the new "policy storm" of social media, family dynamics, and shifting student needs that have fundamentally redefined the role.
• The Evolution of "Grow Your Own": How leadership development is moving away from structured, technocratic programs toward more organic, community-rooted pathways that prioritize relational trust.
• Austerity and its Aftermath: A look at the "policy storms" facing current districts. Moore offers a cautionary tale from the 2008 downturn, questioning whether districts are currently repeating the painful mistake of eliminating recruiting functions exactly when they need them most.
• AI vs. The Human Element: Is AI a near-term panacea for the teacher shortage, or simply a tool to reduce adult workload? Moore weighs in on where technology ends and the irreplaceable skill of a teacher begins.
• The 30% Pay Gap: We look at the rational barriers preventing talent from entering the profession and the "headcount math" required to actually move the needle on teacher compensation.

Michael Moore’s perspective is rare: he is a veteran who refuses to be cynical. He argues that the field’s deepest problem isn’t a lack of good ideas—it is a chronic failure to stay committed to them. This episode is a must-listen for any K12 talent professional looking for a reminder that while the work is harder than ever, we already have the map; we just have to stay the course.

Listen now and join the conversation on how we can finally start sticking with what works.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hi everyone, welcome to the Higher Ground Podcast. I'm excited today to have Michael Moore on our show. Mike and I started working together almost 20 years ago when we worked for New Leaders for New Schools and also did a fair amount of leadership pipeline and selection work with districts after that. So excited to be back together to talk about talent in K-12. Welcome, Mike.

SPEAKER_01 0:18

Great to see you. Wonderful to see you.

SPEAKER_00 0:20

So one of the things you and I were talking about before we started recording is both the lessons we've learned over these years, you a few more than me, in education and working with K-12 systems, but also what does it mean for the next generation of leadership? So I guess to start from, where do you feel like 20 years ago we were when we thought about leadership and the role of school leaders and district leaders? And where are we today?

SPEAKER_01 0:42

Well, you know, even 20 years ago, one of the things that I said was that principals are the most important people in any school system. Um and I really believe that because they are in the middle. So they're the ones that are taking things from above, from the regulatory environment, from the boards, from superintendents. And they're also the ones that are dealing day-to-day with the things that come up on the campus. One of the things I've been saying lately to folks is I feel confident, even though I've been out of the system for 20 years, that I could be a superintendent and be a good one tomorrow. I'm not sure I could be a principal tomorrow. I mean, the environment has changed so much with social media, with the variety of student needs that come up, with the way that families deal with school systems, with the different ri requirements that are being put on folks. So I feel like what I've learned about leadership is that campus level leadership with faculty, with families and students is more important than ever.

SPEAKER_00 1:30

And what do we do? I think about when we worked at New Leaders, and there's still programs like New Leaders and others trying to bring in folks to the system and train and coach them, but it feels like some of the energy around that has waned as districts have felt more restriction on resources and as folks have felt like the talent pool is tighter. So are you seeing any promising innovations either in particular systems or nationwide that we should pay attention to?

SPEAKER_01 1:52

Well, I feel like we've started we're starting to broaden the definition of grow your own a little bit. And what I mean by that is that the first generation or two of grow your own were like programs, right? Or partnership that you would do. And I feel like I think all the way back, this is something you can relate to, Christina. I think all the way back to when Rob Schwartz and his folks were at ICEF in LA. And I can remember having lunch one day out there and talking to a campus leader, and I said, you know, what's your background? And he was like, I went to school here. I was a dean here, I was a teacher here, I came up through. And so I think more and more in in mid-sized to large urban, for example, we're seeing people not necessarily look out for programs or look to partnerships, but to try to be sure that they're tapping folks at each level of the system and bringing them into their own kind of differentiated pathway and eventually bringing them into school leadership. I think I you've done a lot of that work, I know in shower.

SPEAKER_00 2:42

Yeah, I talked to Heather Kirkpatrick a few weeks ago from Alder, and you know, how needed is their focus, their earlier stage, right? But their focus on getting the paras and getting people in the community and kind of getting them into pipelines for leadership, but well, teaching first, but then hopefully long-term leadership. And there's some friction there, right? Like sometimes those folks don't have a BA. Um, sometimes they need extra support to get the classes done and get the training done. But I do think the grow your own, there's more focus on that. When you and I worked at New Leaders 20 years ago, half the people that I recruited for the Bay Area program were coming to the Bay Area from somewhere else. And I don't think that's true anymore, right?

SPEAKER_01 3:18

No, I it feels like knowing the roots of where you are is an important thing. And I feel like that that's the benefit of the current generation of grow your own is that you know your family, you know your environment, you understand what the expectations are, what the needs are. And that's just that just feels tremendously important to me rather than being more technocratic, which I think is what we saw 20 years ago, 15 years ago.

SPEAKER_00 3:39

And a little less prescriptive, maybe, right? I think we had more here the specific criteria you have to have. I think we're a little more expansive now.

SPEAKER_01 3:46

Well, we see that. I mean, in con in concrete terms, we see that in the walk back from teacher evaluation, for example. So I mean, 10 or 12 years ago, you know, principals spent all their effort um, you know, doing classroom walkthroughs and doing evaluations and all that. And as states have rolled back requirements, districts and principals have rolled back their requirements. Now I think there's a real need to be able to give good informative coaching advice and feedback when you're in classrooms and to be in classrooms a lot, but that's different than filling out the ratings on some evaluation form that take three hours to do.

SPEAKER_00 4:15

Yeah, the Danielson, right? The famous 19-point report or whatever. How are districts responding to this current moment? I ask because you're way more plugged into the bigger district landscape than I am. How are districts responding to this current moment in terms of shifts in federal policy and even state policies post-pandemic?

SPEAKER_01 4:32

Well, it's it's interesting. I you know, I guess I would say two things. That there's a reality-based thing, which is that the guidance that people are getting changes all the time. It's confusing to people. I mean, we watched, for example, the president and Secretary McMahon talk about moving most of federal title money to block grants. Um, and then all of a sudden Congress put its foot down and said, No, we're not going to do that. So people who were being encouraged to move to with block grants had to like slam on the brakes and stop and think, okay, we still have to deal with Title I versus Title II, Title IV, and so on. So there's that part of it that's just trying to figure out where things are. My colleague Dana Zorva Grode does an excellent um federal flash with that every single day to say, here's where we are with this today, because it does change every day. But the other thing I think that that superintendents have been better at in the last, let's say in 2026, um, has been not overreacting. So I think when I was a superintendent, there was a tendency to say as a superintendent or as a board, things like no travel, no new curriculum materials, you know, that kind of thing, these blanket statements. And then districts just grind down to a halt when they do that because that's what keeps them going. And so I think superintendents and boards now are more sophisticated than just thinking like, we'll wait it out. We know that the federal money from SR has gone away, we have to cut back some positions, student enrollment is falling, but that doesn't mean that we'll just make blanket statements about that and uh you know just kind of let things wither. My my favorite war story about that is that when I first um went at two urban schools human capital academy in 2010, I guess it was, most of the districts I work with, you'll remember that that was in the downturn of 2008. They had completely eliminated recruiting. They had no recruiters in these big districts. And I was like, where did they go? You still have to hire, you know, math teachers STEM teachers and SPED teachers. And they're like, Well, you know, we're we we've riffed 300 teachers. We don't think we need recruiters. And it's like, well, you need both, right? You've got to rift 300 teachers and you still have to go find SPED teachers and STEM teachers. So I think districts are more sophisticated now about that than they've been.

SPEAKER_00 6:30

Definitely. Yeah, I remember that time working with New York Public Schools and other districts, and some of the work I did was honestly just helping them build out the recruitment calendar and the activities because that what they called recruitment was actually just processing applications. And what I called recruitment, which is strategically sourcing a pool of people, wasn't even on the radar, right? And so I think that's part of it too. I think that's different. I do think that most districts understand we're working with San Francisco Unified right now in a deputy perspective. And it's like the you know, direct report to the superintendent who is going to lead everything related to academics and schools and instruction. And they're taking very seriously that role, right? And paying it very appropriately and hiring someone like us to go and find that person. And so I do think there's an understanding now that you need the highest quality people in seats. So what do you think is next? There's so much buzz around AI. Most of the buzz around AI is how it's going to change teachers and kids. I've heard a lot less about how it might change buildings or building leaders. Are you hearing anything about that? Or do you have any questions?

SPEAKER_01 7:28

That's a that's a touchy subject for me. Well, first off, let me just say that I've been through a advanced product engineering program. I use it all the time. I've been out believing it and all that. And I get very frustrated with educators who say that it's the next big thing. I described it in a LinkedIn post a few months ago as it feels like it's a rumpel stilskin moment for me. Like you have something that could be something, but we're trying to make it into gold when it's not yet gold. I guess what I would say, you know, it's uh April 1st, I guess, now in 2026. What I would say is that it's a it's a wonderful opportunity to reduce the workload um of the adults in the building. And I think it's also a wonderful opportunity to tend to a weak muscle that we've developed when we work with kids, which is critical thinking, right? That we've done a poor job for a generation or two teaching kids to be good critical thinkers, and AI skills are a good way to get them to think more critically about what they're looking at. But I I don't feel like it's gonna be in the next, let's say, three to five years, the panacea that we would like it to be in K-12, only because I think what works in K-12 we know is a teacher who understands their students and can address the needs of their individual students. And we see districts now pulling back Chromebook use, some of the stuff that we got into the habit of when we went through the pandemic, because we feel like that puts a barrier between that student contact with that student, and therefore we shouldn't be, for example, too surprised when our student attendance rates are low because it's like I can stay home and play with my Chromebook. I don't need to come to class and have a teacher ignore me.

SPEAKER_00 8:58

Yeah, it's such an interesting moment, right? I think for parents too, like the value of school, the stated value, partly because parents have more flexible work arrangements. So and they've also figured out ways of kids being home and not being at school. But I also think that the value, in some ways, it's good, right? It's shown some lights for parents on what their kids were actually getting at school. But I also think it's made uh people question or minimize perhaps the value of school in ways that could be harmful. And you know, we're seeing that in enrollment declines, we're seeing that in, you know, just attendance rates being low across systems, right?

SPEAKER_01 9:28

Yeah. Well, yeah, what what I would say about that is, and this is an important point that when I knew I was doing this, I wanted to be sure that I made is that, you know, there's nothing like a talented teacher in front of the right students. And so we increasingly don't have that because we've diminished the power of teaching, we've taken voice away from teachers. And so the only way we're going to get to the right place with that is to ensure that teachers are paid well and that they have working conditions that work for them. And right now I feel like we're not in a solid place with either of those. And then to go back to how we started this conversation, I feel like the extension of that is that the other than the specifics of the pay, the working conditions in particular are almost completely under the control of the campus leader of the principal. And so that takes us back to being sure we have principals who understand how to how to work well with teachers and to make their daily experience a positive thing so they give a positive experience to students. But teacher pay, I mean, we're now coming up on a 30% pay differential between K-12 teachers and everybody else with a similar background in terms of their graduate training and that kind of stuff. 30% makes it not a rational thing to want to go into teaching. So we're gonna have to get a jump on that at some point.

SPEAKER_00 10:36

Yeah, and I think, you know, it's interesting to think I I've heard from folks that work with TFA, Teach for America, that, you know, there's some optimism that with AI, changing entry-level jobs, I mean the entry-level jobs I had the first years of my career aren't gonna exist. I don't think they're executive assistants making tenants' appointments, right? And I think that are g are getting biggest for for people. So I I think that that job I did initially, where I also did a lot of other things too, but I don't know if that exists anymore. The teaching might be more attractive. So that is an interesting thought that some people have, right? And and will that change it? And at the same time, you know, when I was talking to Katrin a couple weeks ago, she had a good point that, like, maybe with AI or technology, there might be interesting ways of leveraging it to change who's in the building in terms of like opening up opportunities for people to be in the building. Maybe there'll be new opportunities for new skills, or you know, you always are going to need that amazing teacher in front of kids in the classroom. But will there be other roles in schools that might be interesting that we could introduce that would bring new skills or new people in?

SPEAKER_01 11:34

And I don't know if that's the case, but I that' Yeah, I I feel like one of the ways we can think about this would bring both the adult and the student world together around AI, might be to think about are there non-custodial teacher roles right now, instructional coaching roles, maybe some of the spread roles, some of the IEP roles, some of the stuff like that, that we could do better with technology and eliminate those positions to save money to pay actual master teachers to teach. Because we're gonna have to get headcount down. If we're gonna increase pay, we're gonna have to get headcount down. And getting headcount down, particularly with falling enrollment, is not an easy thing to do. And so to think about well, what are the productivity improvements we can see? And I mean, in this case, I mean humane productivity improvements.

SPEAKER_00 12:15

Right, of course. Yes.

SPEAKER_01 12:16

That would actually that would actually make it a better working day for a third grade teacher or a middle school math teacher with fewer interruptions and more control over their their agency. I think that that may be a way of both improving the working conditions and doing something about pay.

SPEAKER_00 12:30

Yeah, I mean, when you and I started working together, we were here in Oakland where I live, and you know, the district I think then needed to close 20 schools and now they probably need to close 40 plus, right? To be solvent. And it is sad because we can't pay our teachers what we need to because we have too much headcount across the district and all the offices and all the places, right? Um and so I think that you know we keep thinking that the moment's gonna come and hasn't quite come yet, but it's gonna have to come soon. There's just no way we can continue in our large districts to have the deficits we're running indefinitely.

SPEAKER_01 12:59

There's gonna have to be Well, you know, we have we have someplace between six and seven figure surplus of teachers nationally compared to the enrollment. So the enrollment's been going down and the number of teachers have been going up, and that's not sustainable. If let's say we have three and a half million teachers now nationally, and we really need like two point seven, that's a lot of bushes being beat to find that extra six hundred thousand teachers, right? When maybe we don't need them if we simply organize better or right size better. It's painful. I you know, I I want to acknowledge that I think particularly school closings, but even right sizing campuses, is is just a tremendous equity issue for the folks who are already historically underserved and mistreated. So I don't want it anyway minimize that. But I also think that when you're in a neighborhood in Oakland or any place else where your school was built for 800 and it has 175 kids, uh you're probably not getting the kind of education even there that that they would get if they were back in a school of five or six hundred students with a full full service menu.

SPEAKER_00 13:55

Definitely. Well, one of the things that you and I were saying before we um launched into this that I I want to sort of end with in a positive way is that, you know, sometimes it's easy to get down. Those of us who've been in this world for a long time, in education reform for a long time, it's easy to get down on all the things we tried that may not have been successful in the ways we wanted, right? And I also think that it's great to celebrate some of the things that have gone well. Some of those innovations have intended consequences of bringing in excellent people to systems, right? Oakland, for example, most of the leaders in open education, whether within or outside the system, so many of them founded small schools, worked in small schools, are part of new leaders, are part of Teacher America, right? Part of these like networks of people bringing in talent. And so I I guess I just wanted to give you a moment for that reflection, given all that you've seen. But like, how do we kind of help people feel positive that even if the exact intervention we put into place may not have worked exactly the way we did, that sometimes it still can have a positive ripple effect.

SPEAKER_01 14:48

Yeah, thanks for that. So Jody Spolar, who was a partner with me at Urban Schools back in the day, she and I have been writing a little bit about this concept of stability. So she was the chief HR person in Pittsburgh back when they had the $100 million in Gates money. So she's as an HR person, she has spent a lot of time talking about teacher retention, strategic retention. But I think the challenge is that it's deeper than that, right? And so we've been writing about this notion of stability, which is the system is stable enough that it can learn. And it can't be stable enough if the resources change year over year, or the new board comes in and they have new goals, or you have a new strat, or you keep turning principals over. And so you want to look at what are the factors that contribute to like not permanent, but like solid enough foundation that you can do really good work on top of that. And picking up your point, I feel like one of the most solid foundations we can provide is relational networking up and down in the system and across the system. So if principals have time to be with each other, to talk to each other about their challenges, to work on political practice together, teachers have the same. And then at the campus, for example, principals are not engaging in some district initiative rollout, but they're actually talking with teachers and learning from teachers, and teachers are talking with students and learning from students. That's building a robust muscle around just people being together in the space. It's creating a community of practice for folks that they can work from to work on the more challenging things. You know, this is my second year in education, and one of the things that I've said for 52 years is we know what to do. We absolutely know what to do. We just don't stick with it long enough for it to work. And so I don't think it's it's not technically difficult to figure out how to teach reading as long as we don't distract people from teaching reading. And so I would I I'm very I'm very bullish on the outcomes that we're gonna see once we start to really focus on getting back to business, standing on business.

SPEAKER_00 16:39

I've heard you say that many times, Mike, and I think it's very that's a great way to end us here. Any final thoughts for the audience before we wrap up?

SPEAKER_01 16:46

I don't. I appreciate being here, and I I I know what good work you're doing in the field. And I also just a personal note, I also say to people all the time if you want to see somebody who took something, created something, and grew it into something that's changing the field, Christina and agility is really a good place to look. Touches me always. So thanks for that.

SPEAKER_00 17:03

So you've been a great, a great support to me over the years and a great mentor. So thank you. Great to see you. Bye.

SPEAKER_01 17:08

Take care. Bye bye.