Tag Archives: School Building Leadership

“Should the Mayor Control N.Y.C. Schools? Mamdani and Cuomo Don’t Agree.” Oddly, They’re Both Wrong.

Posted on by

“Should the Mayor Control N.Y.C. Schools? Mamdani and Cuomo Don’t Agree.” Oddly, They’re Both Wrong.

By Michael A. Johnson

As much as I appreciate The New York Times covering an important public education topic (“Should the Mayor Control N.Y.C. Schools? Mamdani and Cuomo Don’t Agree,” NYT, 10/28/25), this is one of those moments when I fall back on the warnings of my great high school geometry teacher, Mr. Weinberger, who used to remind us: “If you start off with the wrong algorithmic premise, you will absolutely end up with the wrong answer.”

In this case, the see-sawing governance performance show starring centralization vs. decentralization actors has never significantly shifted the academic performance gap calculus in a New York City public school system made up of a majority of Black and Latino students. And when you look at the most intellectually vibrant, inspiring, and empowering schools and programs in the city, those same “majority” students remain a chronically underrepresented minority.

So many years after the passing of our nation’s signature civil rights laws, the condition of Black and Latino students’ access to intellectually enriching programs is still dismal. Specialized high school admission numbers (even with an expanded number of schools) have dramatically dropped in comparison to my 1960s high school days. Those higher numbers from the ’60s are even more startling when you consider that many students didn’t apply to specialized high schools because you could actually receive a quality education at your neighborhood high school—so taking the Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT) wasn’t such a big deal.

We need to talk about why the pedagogically and strategically deficient governance question is always asked, and answered, in the same narrow and ineffective ways. Part of the problem is deciding whether public education exists to serve its true purpose as a generational progress multiplier, or as an adult jobs-and-consultants payday system. In some schools, districts, and zip codes, the latter clearly prevails. In others, fewer in number, providing a quality education to secure the next generation’s future success remains the real mission.

And lest anyone think this corruption of purpose is solely the work of “evil, powerful White New Yorkers,” let me assure you—there are plenty of us former NYC Black and Latino superintendents (with the scars to prove it) who can share community school board corruption stories you’d swear could only come from the pen of a fiction writer.

But the system’s terrible response to this dysfunction—“removing politics” from education by concentrating political control in the hands of the city’s chief political officer (the mayor)—was doomed from the start. Again, channeling my high school geometry teacher: why did anyone think that would work? Beyond a few incremental “gains,” statistically lifted by the performance of the system’s most advantaged students, mayoral control has never produced sustained, equitable academic excellence.

Now we’re entertaining decentralization 2.0 (or is it 3.0, 4.0, or 5.0?). Yet in this latest iteration, there’s still no mention of—or respect for—the highly impactful activists in any school’s success: the educational supervisors, assistant principals, and principals. As a former superintendent, I learned firsthand the incredible power of school building leadership to drive rapid, significant, and sustained academic improvement.

Black and Latino parents: don’t be hoodwinked, bamboozled, or led astray by voices that sound progressive but will lead your children down the same regressive, underachieving path—regardless of the governance structure. If “teachers and parents” are allegedly given more policymaking power, then no elected or appointed official is responsible for student learning. The teachers will keep their jobs; the consultants will keep their contracts; and the only losers will be Black and Latino families—whose children will continue to feed our criminal justice system.

At some point, the ignored and disenfranchised parents of New York City must demand a first-loyalty-to-children pledge from every elected official who receives their votes. That pledge must compel those officials to do—statutorily and structurally—“whatever is necessary,” including revisiting labor and governance laws, to ensure that every child receives a quality education every year of their school life.
A good place to start is by ending the governance merry-go-round that always leaves the same children on the bottom rung. We need an accountable system that looks nothing like “mayoral control,” powerless educational panels, or faux “parent-teacher” governance models.

Michael A. Johnson is a former NYC teacher, principal, superintendent, and adjunct professor of education. He is the author of two books on school-building leadership: Report to the Principal’s Office: Tools for Building Successful High School Administrative Leadership and Report from the Principal’s Office: A 200-Day Inspirational and Aspirational School Leadership Journal.

Ending Kindergarten Gifted & Talented Screenings Is Right—But It’s a Superficial Political Fix for a Complicated Pedagogical Problem

Posted on by

Ending Kindergarten Gifted & Talented Screenings Is Right—But It’s a Superficial Political Fix for a Complicated Pedagogical Problem

Over the last few weeks, I’ve received numerous emails and calls from across the country asking for my professional opinion on one of New York City’s mayoral candidates’ promises to eliminate the NYCDOE’s Gifted & Talented (G&T) program—starting with kindergarten.

I can’t think of another question I’ve been asked in recent years that has produced more shocked reactions to my answer. I suppose people assumed, based on what they believe about my educational philosophy—or perhaps what they’ve read in media coverage like The New York Times’ “Scores Count” article or the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) journal piece on how my elementary and middle school students passed New York State high school math and science Regents exams. Folks can’t imagine that I would strongly oppose eliminating early G&T screenings.

It’s true that I’ve always advocated for the good educational purposes of standardized exams—as tools to strengthen students’ conceptual, competitive, and performance skills based on learning standards, and as instruments to inform instruction. But I’ve also been a consistent opponent of bad, and sometimes downright deleterious, assessment tools, especially those that confirm and perpetuate unfair advantages.

And this is the place where I usually get into trouble: I will always call out the hypocrisy of public education systems and elected officials. NYC’s Specialized High Schools Admissions Test (SHSAT), is just as educationally and morally problematic as the kindergarten G&T screening test, largely because it measures the quality of a student’s exposure to consistent, high-quality instruction year after year, something over which a child has absolutely no control.

When I earned my Master’s in Supervision and Administration from Bank Street College, I occasionally observed classes at the Bank Street School (the alma mater of one of the mayoral candidates). I spoke with administrators, teachers, and students. The Bank Street School’s entire educational program could, in many ways, be considered a G&T-based pedagogy. Its methodologies, rooted in Deweyan progressive education, emphasized critical thinking, problem-posing, and problem-solving skills. And yes, the staff also helped students build strong conceptual and technical test-taking skills. Their approach was designed to draw out each child’s inherent gifts and talents while preparing them to perform well on standardized assessments like the SHSAT.

My position, as some have miscategorized, is not about loving standardized exams, but as the old Brooklyn saying goes, my position is simple: “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” And if these are the “gate-keeping” rules of the game, then let’s help the children of disenfranchisement master them.

“Change the joke and slip the yoke.” —Ralph Ellison

I have spent my professional life warning Black and Latino parents, while actively empowering their children educationally, about the twin dangers of liberal paternalism and conservative degradation. They sound and act differently, yet both lead us through endless cycles of centralization and decentralization, one failed and very expensive “closing-the-gap” initiative after another, and still these public-school systems continue to fail the same majority cohort of Black and Brown students.

This current gifted-and-talented debate (one of many over the years) will be no different, because elected officials either lack the knowledge or the will to create public schools where every child, regardless of the school they attend, receives the high-quality education they deserve. Anything less is campaign-commercial talk.

Even if a mayor and their chancellor abolished every K–8 G&T program in the city, the political elephant in the room remains: learning quality inequity would simply reorganize itself by zip code and schools. Some children would still receive G&T-level experiences, while others—trapped in the wrong zip codes and schools—would continue receiving an inferior education.

So let’s explore the educational, developmental, psychological, and social variables that distort or invalidate any attempt to administer or interpret a kindergarten G&T admissions exam accurately. And let’s also examine where both the “ban it” and “keep it” camps fall pedagogically and courageously short; for neither addresses how to effectively support children entering kindergarten who arrive at vastly different points along the pre-kindergarten learning spectrum—regardless of race or ethnicity.

The real question is: how do we design ethical early childhood education screenings, not for exclusionary labeling, but to guide instructional models that embraces “multiple intelligences” and adopts a more male-child-friendly, sound-developmental approach to early childhood teaching and learning?

High-Stakes Admission Testing for Four- and Five-Year-Olds—What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Well, everything.

The Ethical Flaws: Human Developmental and Racially Prejudicial Problems

Applying a high-stakes admissions exam to 4- or 5-year-olds presumes that “giftedness” is fixed at birth—and therefore measurable at that very early stage of human development. Worse, it assumes that giftedness is not equally distributed among the “being born” population. This idea, even if put forward by an atheist assumes that God is favoring some children to be giftedly great in this world and others to be something less-than-great. Or, that nature (for those atheistically inclined), in a random casino-gambling way, somehow placed “giftedness” in the heads of a select group of babies whose parents just happen to be mostly white, wealthy, and well-educated.

Both positions are morally and scientifically indefensible. Children at this age are in a state of rapid and constant neurodevelopmental fluctuation—their attention spans vary widely depending on external stimuli, the language of adults, emotional responses, and their willingness to please authority figures. Their test performance can swing unpredictably based on comfort with the examiner, prior exposure to testing, or even what they ate that morning. These variables are profoundly shaped by home environment, nutrition, access to enrichment, and socio-economic conditions—not by innate “giftedness.”

And let’s be honest: if high school principals like me have trouble convincing some teenagers, especially boys, to treat high-stakes exams as life-changing events, what hope do we have of convincing 4- or 5-year-olds? (Full-disclosure) When my own daughter took the G&T test, we didn’t even tell her what it was. We made up a story about why a friendly stranger wanted to ask her questions. Fortunately, she was a confident graduate of Brooklyn’s Little Sun People preschool, where she had spent years engaging with adults who weren’t her parents and learning in a rich, kindergarten-like environment. On test day, she went into full “please-the-adults” performance mode.

The truth, which educators know but rarely tell the public (perhaps out of fear of further lowering public confidence), is that despite the great work of developmental psychologists like Bruner, Vygotsky, and Piaget, there is still much about the brain and mind we do not know—certainly not enough to justify excluding children from future opportunities at such an early formative age.

What if the G&T exam is not measuring giftedness at all—but rather, a child’s unearned access to “parent-pushing power,” privileged affluence, early literacy exposure, and parental educational attainment? If so, this exam is not assessing brilliance—it’s auditing privilege, parental personalities and family priorities.

As a 40+ year public educator, I’ve quietly observed how veteran teachers, often unconsciously, change their tone and demeanor when two well-educated, well-spoken Black or Latino parents walk into the room. Professional educators, including test administrators, are human. My daughter’s charm, vocabulary, and background won the day—but the truth is her environment gave her enormous advantages: nightly reading, exposure to museums, modern ballet classes, a home library, and an academically rich preschool experience. Meanwhile, countless other children—whose parents, for reasons of work, awareness, or distrust, did not even bring them for G&T testing—were automatically excluded from consideration.

How About This: Let Professional Educators Make Educational Decisions

And finally, the primary reason this critical early childhood decision should be taken out of the hands of all politicians, regardless of party or ideology, and placed in the not-seeking-votes hands of dedicated professional educators. Public education fails large segments of families not because parents don’t care or because children lack ability, but because a high-quality educational product is not equally distributed across the system.

In schools like Bank Street, Stuyvesant, and Bronx Science, there is zero tolerance for instructional incompetence. The open secret of public education is that in too many schools, often those serving our poorest students, there is too much teacher turnover, too many inexperienced teachers for school administrators to coach effectively, and not enough of a critical mass of veteran, very-good to mastery-level teachers capable of sustaining high levels of instructional excellence, that matches high expectations of student capabilities.

And those “very good to mastery-level” teachers, and their school leaders, must operate from what I call, a place of Essential Efficacy: the conviction that educators bear full responsibility for a child’s success, independent of the student’s socio-economic status, language background, or parental influence.

Many of us who led high-performing Title I schools achieved this by becoming Entrepreneurial Principals (see Report from the Principal’s Office, pp. 556–564), closing the resource gap by raising huge amounts of additional funds and building high-efficacy instructional cultures. But more importantly, we succeeded because we, and our staff, believed—deeply—that all children arrive in this world with a unique set of skills and talents, and that it is the sacred duty of professional educators to find and draw out those gifts.

So yes, ending kindergarten G&T testing is the right decision—but for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. It’s an easy political-rhetorical win, but a meaningless gesture that doesn’t address the deeper disease of educational quality inequity.

And, until we build a system that cultivates every child’s potential with the same fervor, we now reserve for labeling a few as “gifted,” we will keep playing the same mis/under educated rigged game.

The goal isn’t to find the gifted, it’s to bravely grow the gifts inherently existing in all of our students.


Social media platforms are political shark tanks, and they’re not the place where educators who aspire to be or desire to remain school-building or district-level administrators would want to cut themselves.

Posted on by

Professional educators should be careful about what they post on social media platforms. I speak specifically to those who presently serve or aspire to be an assistant principal, principal, deputy superintendent, superintendent, or district-level administrator. You could be dealing with folks in powerful positions who are guided by and operating in a mean, ugly and wanting to hurt you or your kids’ spirit. Stay calm and focused, lead with your mind and leave your hyper-emotions behind, and engage in affirming and gaining power for those disenfranchised and dismissed students of our nation who are under your care. Think of the immense impact you can have on these children if you can remain in or get into a school-based or district-level leadership position. Don’t let your adversaries know your thoughts; act audaciously and powerfully, and with student success supporting intentionality, but don’t talk about those actions publicly. Every highly valued and highly effectual school leader is a “rule maker-braker-bender.” You want to be able to say after you have acted boldly on behalf of your students (tongue firmly in cheek and a contrived look of sincere contrition), “Oh my goodness, I didn’t know I couldn’t do that, (and since it’s too late now), I am so sorry, and please accept my sincere apology!” (hopefully, my former superintendent won’t see this!:-) Remember, your positive and thoughtful actions can make a profound difference in the lives of your students.

School Employee Disciplinary Procedures and Outcomes are Complex. And so, Just a Brief Note For Aspiring School-Based Leaders.

Posted on by

School Employee Disciplinary Procedures and Outcomes are Complex. And so, Just a Brief Note For Aspiring School-Based Leaders.

“Maryland teacher under investigation, ‘reassigned’ out of classroom after video shows students unbraiding hair, painting his nails in class…”

There’s a lot to unpack here…

This blog post is dedicated to those educators aspiring to become school-building leaders (APs or principals). My goal is to shed some light on a highly complex topic of utmost importance in any school-based supervisory experience. I’ll also discuss some preventative pre-crises actions that those desiring to be school-based administrators should consider. A brief, outsider “first glance” look can be very deceiving regarding public school employees’ disciplinary procedures and final determination outcomes. I aim to walk you through this complex (although very common) public education phenomenon, highlighting several vital points that must be considered:

First, any public (civil service) school employee who is being either investigated (reassigned while receiving full pay, including all scheduled step increases) or disciplined has a First Amendment right to speak publicly, reach out to print or electronic news media sources, wage a campaign on social media platforms, and do radio/TV. interviews, contact elected officials (note exception: the district’s school board members should not get involved during the course of the investigation), speak at public meetings, etc. about the case “as they perceive it” (except for naming the possible students involved), they can also rant endlessly about the “wrongness,” “silliness,” incompetence, racism, bigotry, revengefulness, and any other so-called alleged bad acts against them by the school administrators or the school district involved.

However, the school administrators and district officials involved, based on perhaps local, state, or federal laws and local labor contractual agreements, don’t enjoy that same First Amendment right to tell their side of the story or to present some elements of the case that the employee has failed to reveal, or that the employee in question may not even know that these unmentioned pieces of critical evidence are in the district’s possession. All this is to say, be careful when we read and arrive at a “slam-dunk” right or wrong education news story because all of the facts of the case may not be present in the employee’s presentation of the situation, or the district’s “forced” silence on the matter.

It is also not uncommon for an employee (still speaking publicly) to claim that their class lesson evaluations are “excellent” or that they are popular with students and parents. But this is the proverbial apples-to-oranges comparison; instructional competence and student and parental “likability factor” (or the opposite) should not interfere with the school administrator’s or district’s ethical, professional, thorough, fair, and objective investigation of the incident(s).

There is a reason that school and district administrators must complete a mandatory course in “Education Law,” And that is because this “Education Law” (even though it contains elements of) is, in many significant ways, different from “regular law.” For example, as a high school principal, every year, my dean and I had a non-monetary fun wager about the earliest date when some ninth grader (and often also their parent) would make an uninformed claim that a student’s locker was part of their personal and private (requiring a search warrant) space––not it’s not! Or the student has a First Amendment right to “speak whatever is on their mind” in the middle of a teacher’s lesson––no, they don’t!

In the case of employee investigations, you will often observe a school district being inclined to act in a way that non-educators might interpret as being “extreme” or “doing-too-much” and that’s because school districts (like local Child Protective Agencies) must, if they err, “err on the side of caution” when it comes to the physical and emotional safety of children. Again, some non-educators might see the employee being temporarily removed or reassigned pending an investigation as the district has arrived at a “guilty verdict,” but this is inaccurate. Further, this incomplete and incorrect perception of “employee guilt” before the investigation is completed is often created by the employees themselves, who are busy “talking up” their side of the story to everybody (sometimes cynically trying to drum up student or parental support) who will listen, while the district, not just for legal and employee contractual reasons, but also to protect students, parents, mandated reporters, any witnesses, and the integrity of the investigation is prohibited from publicly providing any information about the case; even after a final determination has been arrived at.

After the investigation has been completed, the findings and facts of the case should still not be discussed publicly, and even the school board should go into a closed to the public “executive session,” which is the proper place to hear and review a personnel matter.

I would advise all educators to avoid posting pictures of students on social media platforms and especially avoid positing on non-district or the employees personal or commercial school media platforms (and, of course, with parental written permission, a small number of specific music performances, plays, team sporting events, etc. are okay). So many things can go wrong, especially in this age of AI, where pictures can be reassigned improperly, corrupted, and sent dangerously viral so easily.

A verbal “parent permission slip” is not worth the empty air it dissipates into once it has been given. There have been situations when an unfortunate incident occurred, and a parent, under the advice of their (now lawsuit-delivering) lawyer, suddenly lost their recollection of telling an educator that they had given permission over the phone for their child to go on a trip or do X with the educator.

Even when an educator receives a signed and dated legitimate written parent permission slip, it’s crucial to adhere to the specified activities strictly. In the case of students either grooming each other or the teacher, which would need to be stated explicitly in the social media posting parent permission form, not just a general: “I’m posting your child on my social media page, is that ok?” (ok for the child to do what?) And, of course, any permission form going out to parents should be reviewed by a school administrator, who would surely (my goodness, I hope!) cancel any “grooming” activity outside of a formal Career Technical Education (CTE) cosmetology program which would have those parent permission granting conversations and documents signed before the start of classes.

Many professional educators are unclear about the “legal protection power” of a signed parent permission form. Parents can’t sign away their right to sue, especially when a staff member is negligent, uses poor judgment, goes “off-curriculum,” introduces “controversial” books (not to be confused with the political banning of authorized books), films, pictures, or other materials not authorized by the SED, local district or school, commits a crime, goes outside of their official job description duties (being groomed by students could fall under that category), and perhaps ignorantly or deceptively omits some of the planned activities from the parent (granting) permission form.

Finally, one, two, three, or more parents being “Okay” with a particular activity does not allow them to speak for all of the parents in the class, team, or club, even if it is a class of 30 students and 29 parents say “go for it” that one dissenting parent’s concerns must be seriously considered and properly address without stigmatizing that parent or their child, which is why a school administrator should always be involved.

Keep students out of your personal business; I get it; adolescents will, in a nice inquisitive way, want to know more about you, but you should deflect and move on, perhaps with a joke, because they are most likely not being mean-spirited, just sweetly nosey, for example: Student: “Mr. Johnson, are you married?” Me: “Never mind about me; you just make sure that when you get older and marry someone, they are on the honor roll and not someone on the dishonor roll, so let’s get to work, or someone may not want to marry you!” They will laugh and maybe try once or twice more, and then it will end because, unlike many adults, children will pick up the context clues that you won’t let them into your personal business space.

Finally, there is what I believe is a false modern pedagogical view (held by some educators and parents) that students want you to be their “friends” when, in actuality, the way nature has planned it and what they expect and what makes them feel safe is that you educator (or parent) be the adult-in-the-room (and in their lives), set boundaries, establish standards of behavior, be a model of their evolving adulthood. Young people, even if they act in contradiction to this idea, want to see and respect you as an elder of the species who will provide them with your accumulated wisdom, which means that both you, the professional educator, and the student’s parents need to find friends your own age!

These are zero-tolerance issues: Don’t allow students to make any inappropriate (sexual harassment) comments about your anatomy, even in the form of a joke––immediately refer them to a school administrator (that was my policy as a principal).

Keep students away (and don’t encourage them) from inappropriately touching your body or clothing; intentions are not important here, as so much can go wrong once this line is crossed. Certain body areas, like hair and hands, can carry some intimacy aspects to them. Students may not be aware of these possibly dangerous zones; that’s where your professionalism and adult sensibilities should kick in.

An excellent guiding behavior and comments question to ask yourself: “Would you say X or do Y if a school administrator or the superintendent was in the classroom if a colleague’s spouse or that student’s parent was in the room?” Besides, when it comes to students “grooming you,” you are working (and should be teaching, by the way) and, therefore, should have the money to go to an outside-of-school commercial grooming facility (nail or hair salon, barbershop, etc.) to have those personal matters tended to.

Further, check first with your school administrator if you are unsure if an activity is prohibited or carries great possibilities of something going terribly wrong; trust me, unless your school administrators have a professional career death wish, they won’t steer you wrong. Besides, there are so many ways to inspire and connect with students and gain their emotional trust without them touching your body. Now, some of my former students might remark: “But you hugged us in the mornings every day at the front door or at graduations,” that would be true, but I was always careful to give my female students “church hugs” in other words the same “sideways” hug, I gave to the elder mothers of my church.

Get a well-informed and experienced mentor(s)! If you are a teacher, an aspiring, newly appointed, or a veteran AP or principal, get a trusted group of peer and “above-your-grade” highly competent and keeping-things-confidential mentors to help you navigate the uncodified job descriptions and rules of any professional education (especially school leadership) job. A great deal of having a successful educational career is knowing what you don’t know but need to know. However, a very dangerous place to be is not knowing what you need to know, not having someone to tell you what you don’t know, or ignoring when someone does tell you those unwritten but rigorously enforced workplace rules.

Finally, there is a reason that the novel Lord of the Flies, a classic literary work that explores the dynamics of a group of boys stranded on an uninhabited island, has lasted so many years on the MS/HS favored reading list. Despite their outward bravado and bold verbosity, adolescents actually don’t want (and are unsettlingly frightened) to manage their school or a classroom. Our young people are anthropologically and biologically (albeit perhaps unconsciously) inclined to want and seek guidance from grownups on how to safely and effectively transition (survive and fit) into the adult versions of our species.

The vast majority of students come to school daily to learn, including students who, unfortunately, attend chronically underperforming schools. This means our first professional prime directive is to teach them intellectual, emotional, moral, and the open and “hidden” social survival techniques, along with those critically important hard and “soft” professional skills.

Even if they seem to express the opposite, students want a school environment where the adults are in managerial and instructional charge. Many students who may live in neighborhoods where they could be subjected to random acts of violence desperately want those precious hours they spend in a school to be a time period that will allow them to exist in a secure, well-organized, predictable, and standards of expectations and clarity of rules, adult-led school building.

Don’t get confused when you get push-back on this issue (they’ll thank you later, or maybe they won’t), for the “push-back” against adult authority is the student’s way of testing the adults (“are you serious when you say that you care about us?”) in the building to determine if the school staff really care enough about them to do the hard work of consistently establishing the perimeters of acceptable language and behaviors. In other words, “Can I get what I need from this school, which at this point I may not even know clearly all that I need, to move me toward a winning future adult life?”

Based on the cognitive development theories of Jean Piaget, we should not (it’s pedagogically wrong and professionally unethical) ask students to make life-defining decisions that their current developmental psychological stage has not prepared them to make (e.g., allowing Black and Latino male students to purposely underperform academically). This counseling and guidance work must be especially well thought out in middle schools because those students are in that very complex and challenging to navigate psychological stage where they are (and it can be day to day) struggling as children while facing their rapidly emerging adult feelings; it’s the complicated place of still being something, and yet, also being driven to be something else; these students need a clear and thoughtful service of values clarification instruction in those middle school grades.

Teaching students the boundaries of acceptable language and behaviors prepares them to successfully negotiate the unforgiving and painfully punishing post-public school world. We, the adult educators, should provide students with the inspiration and power to execute safe, sound, and self-empowering choices within the context of adult, well-informed, and experientially driven decisions, what we call in the profession: “guidance” so when they leave us and walk into their full adulthood, they can function in their own and in society’s best interest.

Michael A. Johnson is a native New Yorker and a proud product of the NYC Public School System. This is also the city where he spent the majority of his professional life serving as a public-school teacher, high school principal, and school district superintendent, and as an adjunct professor of science education in the School of Education at St. John’s University. He led the design, development, and building of two science, technology, engineering, and mathematics-career technical education (STEM-CTE) high schools: Science Skills Center High School, NYC and Phelps Architecture, Construction, and Engineering High School, Washington DC.

Books by Michael A. Johnson:
(2018) REPORT TO THE PRINCIPAL’S OFFICE: Tools for Building Successful High School Administrative Leadership.

(2021) REPORT FROM THE PRINCIPAL’S OFFICE: A 200-Day Inspirational and Aspirational School Leadership Journal.