0.3 Peck, c., & Mullen, c. a. (april 2010). “feet to the fire”:  (Page 6/8)

Discussion of possible political issues and effects

From our examination of the evidence collected, we found that urban school district and reform leaders convey, through rhetoric and symbols, the message that principals are fundamentally important to and ultimately responsible for school improvement and student achievement. In our second research question, we asked what political effects the sustained media emphasis on urban principal accountability may generate. We know from existing literature that politics is potent in educational systems (Cooper, Cibulka,&Fusarelli, 2008) and in the symbolic work of organizational leaders (Bolman&Deal, 2008). Principals, the primary focus of urban accountability initiatives, occupy a precarious position at the nexus of competing political interests (Black&English, 2001; Cuban, 1988; Wolcott, 1973). Given this context and our findings from the evidence analyzed, we speculate that the rhetoric and symbols of urban principal accountability may be associated with two political effects in particular.

One, publicly positioning principals as important to and responsible for school success aligns with current reform literature. Ouchi (2009), for instance, proposes that systemic reform in school districts is possible if individual principals are given autonomy to manage individual schools as they see fit and if they are held accountable for academic results. The logic behind this thinking is that effective individual leaders will improve individual schools, affording positive changes to an entire district. However, urban district leaders can also realize short-term political benefits by holding principals publicly accountable. If principals are primarily responsible for school success, then the principal, not the mayor or district leader, is mainly responsible for school failure. This political pivot—placing the symbolic onus of accountability on the shoulders of individual site-based principals—may serve as a means for redirecting pressures away from district headquarters and city hall and toward the schoolhouse door and especially the principal’s office.

Two, news accounts of a district’s principal turnover rates and forced removals may signify a district leader’s efforts to foment deep-reaching, fundamental change in their system. Media reports specifying substantial numbers of principal departures and news images of district leaders terminating principals offer a symbol of decisive action: Here is a “get tough” leader doing whatever is deemed necessary to help children succeed at school. At the very least, district leaders’ “feet to the fire” rhetorical approach delivers an unmistakable message to principals: Get the desired school results or you will be next to face removal. Even if this type of action is interpreted as a form of public shaming or blame-shifting, the broader public may embrace it as a necessary step for improving urban schools, especially given the widespread belief that principals ultimately determine school success (and failure).