This was part of a journal article published in 97.
Journal of Staff Development, Spring 1997 (Vol. 18, No. 2)

" At some point we are going to have to answer the question of why it is that the most powerful teachers, schools, and principals (the ones who produce the highest levels of student achievement) always seem to be in trouble with the central office, with peers, and with professional organizations.
One would think that a school principal who took a high school, the Science Skills Center in Brooklyn, from the bottom quartile to the top of the city's academic pyramid would be a hero. The mostly poor and minority children, selected by lottery, are all expected to pass the New York State's standards for a regents diploma -- and do. Attendance is near the top of the city. Dropouts and fighting have virtually been eliminated. Even special education students, for the most part, are expected to meet the same high standards. Then why is principal Michael Johnson a pariah to the union, to the central office, and even to the school reform movement (Mosle, 1996)? This is not atypical!
Successful educators often are accused of not being team players when they challenge low expectations, require accountability, demand hard work from themselves and others, question bureaucratic rules, question personnel assignments, and question the use of curriculum materials.
It is as if their great success is an embarrassment to those who fail to perform. It is as if their break from standardized routine is too troubling for those who are comfortable with their habits. It is as if there may be a perceived threat to competitors or supervisors who have not matched the performance of the power educators.
Whatever the reason, something is dreadfully wrong when bad practice is celebrated and great practice is unknown or ignored. How will we ever be able to use our best practice as the source of the design of teacher education?"