In education, leadership is often defined by how quickly you can leave the classroom. Titles get longer, responsibilities get broader, and calendars get fuller. Somewhere along the way, proximity to students is treated like a phase you graduate from rather than a perspective you should protect.
I’ve come to believe the opposite: the closer a leader stays to students, the better their decisions become.
In my role as Director of Career and Technical Education, my responsibilities lives largely at the system level. I spend much of my time working on program design, budgeting decisions, staffing, compliance, strategic planning, and partnership. These are necessary components of effective leadership because they shape the opportunities students ultimately receive. But I still teach. Not because I have to, but because I need to.
Classrooms are where policies stop being ideas and being experiences.
When one leads from a distance, it’s easy to believe systems are working because reports are saying they are. Data shows trends. Meetings generate plans. Initiatives appear successful on paper. But teaching puts you face-to-face with reality. You see immediately whether supports are actually accessible, whether instructions are clear, whether technology functions as intended, and whether students are engaged or simply compliant.
That kind of feedback loop is impossible to replicate from an office.
Teaching also sharpens decision-making. When you regularly experience the instructional environment, you begin to design programs differently. You stop asking what sounds innovative and start asking what will actually work during a single class period with real students, real constraints, and real learning needs. That shift moves leadership from theoretical to practical, from abstract to applied.
For leaders working with Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students, this prominently is especially important. Many educational structures were not designed with DHH learners in mind. This means leaders cannot assume systems function equitably just because they function effectively. The only reliable way to evaluate whether structures truly serve students is to witness them in action.
Classroom presence also changes how educators respond to leadership. When teachers know you still teach, conversations become more collaborative and less hierarchical. Feedback carries different weight because it’s grounded in shared experience rather than position authority. Trust grows when leadership demonstrates it still understands the realities classroom teachers navigate daily.
There is a persistent myth that leadership requires choosing between systematic impact and student-level connection. In practice, the strongest leaders refuse that choice. They operate in both spaces. They design systems informed by the classroom and support classrooms strengthened by intentional systems. They aren’t competing priorities; they are mutually reinforcing each other.
Continuing to teach isn’t about holding onto a former role. It’s about maintaining clarity. Classrooms are the only place where strategy meets reality in real time. They are where assumptions are tested, decisions are validated, and priorities are clarified.
At its core, teaching keeps me aligned with my purpose. I didn’t enter this role to manage systems for the sake of systems. I entered it to impact students’ lives.
I often ask myself a simple question: “Would I feel comfortable explaining this decision to my students?”
If the answer is no, the decision needs more work.
I still teach because it makes me a better leader. And as long as I’m responsible for shaping programs, I want to stay close to where those futures are formed, in the classroom.