Principal Pressure in the Middle of Accountability

Case Narrative

For the past 5 years, Tom Thompson has been the principal of Merrel Middle School, located in an impoverished neighborhood within an otherwise middle-class city of 20,000 residents. About 60% of Merrel’s students are English language learners (ELL); nearly 80% of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Born and raised in the Merrel community, Tom planned to devote his career to the school district. His first years in the teaching profession were spent in a neighboring school district. With his principal’s encouragement, Tom had pursued his administrative credential from the state university located an easy half-hour’s drive from home. Upon completing that program, Tom had been hired by the previous Merrel superintendent, Herb Platten, to lead the middle school. Reflecting his growing confidence in his role as a school leader and with encouragement of Superintendent Platten, Tom had recently sought admission to a doctoral program, a step that he hoped might expand his opportunities in his profession.

Last spring, Dr. Platten, the much-loved superintendent of the Merrel School District, retired after 42 years as an educator. He had led the Merrel School District for the past 26 years. After an extensive search that included on-site visits by three finalists, the school board hired Dr. Marlene Jones, a newly minted PhD from a well-regarded university in the Rust Belt. Although Dr. Jones had considerable business management experience in P-12 education, the appointment to the position in Merrel was her first as a school superintendent. In keeping with their announced intention to seek a candidate who would not be wedded to the status quo, the board embraced Dr. Jones’s avowed plan to raise student scores on the state test. One of Dr. Jones’s specific strategies was to eliminate teachers who were demonstrably in the bottom 5% of teacher effectiveness, a determination made on the basis of a complex formula extrapolated from results on the annual state assessment.

In August, before the school year began, Dr. Jones called the district’s principals to a meeting and presented her data-driven, evidenced-based philosophy of education shaped by her years of responsibility for the financial oversight of schools in the state’s largest urban school district. Articulating a theme of accountability, Dr. Jones emphasized the importance of test scores in gauging the extent to which teachers were effective in helping students develop competency in core skills; she also announced that her focus would not be solely on teachers, that she would also include principals in the scope of her scrutiny. “I’m going to take a hard look at your performance as principals this year,” she said. “I’m not into the ‘warm fuzzy’ approach,” she stated, waving her hand in a dismissive gesture. Conversation in the parking lot following this meeting assured Tom that he was not the only principal who received the superintendent’s words with a sense of foreboding. Principals worried that the evaluation mode for measuring student growth had not been tried and tested sufficiently for immediate implementation. “If we roll this out before it’s ready,” mused Stacy Streeter, the principal of Merrel High School, “we’re going to lose teacher trust.”

Two weeks later, at the all-staff opening session held in the gymnasium of the district’s only high school, staff morale seemed positive. As teachers and other staff members found seats in the bleachers, the atmosphere hummed with expressions of excitement at the prospect of a new school year, animated conversations among colleagues, and stories of treasured summer vacations wistfully shared. Apart from two teachers who had served on the district’s search team, few of the staff had spoken with Dr. Jones. The staff eagerly awaited the opportunity to hear their superintendent’s vision for the district. At exactly 9:00 a.m., a bell rang. Dr. Jones emerged from the doorway beneath the scoreboard on the east wall and strode briskly to a lectern and microphone, pausing momentarily to shake hands with the high school principal.

The initial buzz of excitement from the assembled staff quickly turned to silence as Superintendent Jones launched into her plan to implement a radically new teacher evaluation system based in large part on student scores on the state test. The foundation for the new evaluation criteria had been laid the previous winter when the state’s Department of Education had adopted new regulations, a highlight of which was a requirement that the yearly state test be weighted as 40% of teacher evaluation. The lights in the gymnasium grew dim, and a PowerPoint image, with a bold “Evaluation” as its heading, appeared on a large screen suspended behind the superintendent. Then, to the surprise of her audience, Dr. Jones clicked on a slide of student test scores listed by individual grade levels and the teachers in those grades. Delineated by state-tested grades and subjects, teachers’ names were listed in order of their students’ scores, from high to low, and accompanied by gradients that identified a range from very effective to not effective. Hushed murmurs rippled through the ranks as each teacher scanned the list for his or her name.

At the bottom of the list of middle school math teachers was John Prentice, a 15-year Merrel veteran. Principal Thompson was shocked and dismayed. John was well liked by students, and parents often requested Mr. Prentice by name. Over the course of his career, John’s teaching evaluations had been satisfactory or above as gauged by the criteria in the state law and the district’s bargaining agreement. He had attended in-service trainings offered by the district and participated in the state middle school math organization. Tom has often noted the passion John brought to his work: students from previous classes often dropped in for a chat with their middle school math teacher, he had successfully mentored some of Merrel’s toughest kids, and he tirelessly championed efforts to fund college scholarships for low-income children. He often stayed after school to tutor struggling students. When the counselor looks for a class for one of the many “difficult cases” Merrel enrolls every year, John could be counted on to welcome that student. However, although his students with average and above-average skills regularly scored well on assessments, his special education and ELL students seem to struggle.

The day following the staff opening session, Superintendent Jones asked Tom to come to her office after school. Getting right to the point of the meeting, Dr. Jones said, “Mr. Prentice’s students performed at the bottom of the test scores according to the data we’ve gotten from the state. I want you to take care of it.” She paused. “Either Mr. Prentice shows a marked improvement in those test scores, or you counsel him out.” Tom attempted to explain to Dr. Jones that John deserved an opportunity to learn the expectations of the new evaluation system. Furthermore, Tom almost pleaded, “John has been given the most difficult students year after year. It’s not that he works miracles, but he gives them his best effort.” Tom added, hopefully, that instead of resorting immediately to drastic measures, John might be given some latitude to receive some professional development. Perhaps, the principal also suggested, student math course enrollment might be redistributed thereby giving Tom a group of students more representative of Merrel Middle School’s student body. John argued that there might be unintended consequences for teachers who work with special need students if test results are treated like data from any other students. “I already see teachers fighting to keep difficult to teach kids out of their rooms. Penalizing teachers like John who take all students and work with them tirelessly sends the wrong message to staff,” Tom argued.

Unmoved, Superintendent Jones shifted the focus to Tom. She reminded Tom that the new principal evaluation instrument would incorporate schoolwide student test scores as an indicator of each principal’s effectiveness. “Things are changing around here,” Dr. Jones remarked. “Perhaps you no longer fit the leadership model that I am creating in this district. You decide. It’s up to you.” Tom left the superintendent’s office feeling threatened and uncertain of his future. He reflected on how fast he had fallen from a position of favor under Dr. Platten to one of doubt under the new superintendent.

Tom has been a loyal principal. During Dr. Platten’s tenure, Tom welcomed his superintendent’s expectations and mentoring. Dr. Jones’s assessment of John Prentice was another matter. Tom’s observations of John over the past 5 years did not support the conclusion that John was incompetent. Despite his belief about John’s capabilities as a teacher, that John is a capable teacher, Tom also believed that he could do more to guide and support him. However, Tom found himself barraged daily by urgent and immediate demands from the superintendent. The new state evaluation mandates sharpened his sense that this year would require a vertical learning curve. Moreover, his staff had been bitter and rebellious after the teacher evaluation system was unveiled without staff input. Whereas he has always considered the staff room a welcoming environment, since the start of school, he has found that teachers grew silent when he slipped into the faculty room for a cup of coffee at midmorning.

Last week, John Prentice called in sick 4 days in a row, and Tom recognized that the teacher seemed to be showing signs of stress and depression. Moreover, Tom reflected, as the public revelation that his students scored at the bottom of the district, John’s typically upbeat personality had become subdued and withdrawn. To add to the pressure, today two parents contacted the school counselor to request that their children be reassigned to another teacher. Tom worried that other parent phone calls might follow.

Before leaving the office that evening, Tom checked out the website for the state’s Department of Education. There, amid the hundreds of schools spread across the state, Tom found Paradise Valley Middle School (PVMS), a school located in a community an hour south of Merrel. Having talked at the state principals’ conference last spring with his counterpart at Paradise Valley (PV), Tom knew that the demographics, free and reduced-price lunch ratio, and other indicators at PVMS were similar to those for Merrel. However, PVMS’s student scores on the state assessment were markedly higher in every content area than Merrel’s. In math, PV ranked among the top schools in the state. Tom dashed off an email to Joan Mitchell, the principal at PV, and invited her to meet him over lunch the following Saturday. In his email, he was up front about his motive for the invitation: “You’ve got the same kind of kids as ours, but your test scores put us to shame. I hope you’ll share your secret!”

On Saturday, Tom walked into Stella’s Café with a notepad in hand. His sandwich was scarcely touched when he and Joan went their separate ways almost 2 hours later. In the interim, Joan had shared some of the strategies she and her staff had adopted. Tom was especially interested in how PV teachers had changed their approach to math instruction.

“A lot of our students were giving up without giving much effort on the state test, and our scores were in the tank,” Joan said. “We decided that a starting point would be to give our kids the lay of the land, a kind of ‘test prep.’” In each of the two previous years, Joan explained, math teachers at PVMS had made a sort of “crib sheet” consisting of items they had seen on the state test. Ms. Mitchell emphasized that specific items from the test were not used and that details and numbers in math problems were altered prior to “preparing” students for the test. “Understand, now, we don’t want to cheat,” Joan said, lowering her voice to an alto whisper, and tapping the table with her index finger. “But I figure it’s not cheating as long as you don’t give the students the actual problems from the test.”

On his drive back to Merrel, Tom reflected on what his colleague had told him. However, no matter how he turned Joan’s strategy, it seemed perilously close to something she—or at least he—wouldn’t want to show up as a headline in the morning paper. However, there could be little doubt that “test prep” was helping to boost the assessment scores for PV students. And Joan had admitted that the improvement in scores had taken her and her school out of the cross hairs of scrutiny by her superintendent. How bad could it be, Tom mused, to use Joan’s plan to increase Merrel’s scores, make his superintendent happy, and save John Prentice’s—and perhaps his own—career?

In the weeks that ensued, Tom did not forget his conversation with the PV principal, but he had taken no further action steps. He felt unsure of the correct course of action due to the continuous scrutiny from the superintendent. To add to his stress, his staff members were ever more vocal in support of teacher John. Just today, the union building rep requested a meeting with Tom and made it clear that he intended to bring the association president with him to the meeting. The pressure from all sides was beginning to affect Tom’s health. Lately, he had trouble sleeping. The mirror does not tell lies: He had gained considerable weight. Furthermore, he had started drinking more than he knew he should at the end of every stressful day; the customary glass of wine he had allowed himself upon arriving at home now often extends to a refill or two.

Then in late winter, a UPS truck arrived at Merrel Middle School and unloaded a pallet of boxes containing the materials for the state assessment. Pulling a box of math tests out of the pile, Tom leafed through the pages of the math assessment. “Here we go again,” he muttered under his breath. After scanning the test booklet one more time, Tom closed his office door, slipped the test packet into an empty file folder, asked his secretary to hold all calls, and took out his cell phone.

Teaching Notes

The principal’s competence as an instructional leader is considered by most educators to be the key to school success. Effectiveness and success result from the leader’s ability and authority to implement needed changes and make strategic learning decisions for staff and students. However, the system of public education is much larger than the individual school unit. Consequently, district office decisions, including those made by the superintendent, greatly affect the principal’s authority and management of the school. Some central office decisions, whether intentional or not, result in relegating the principal to a middle management role rather than a leadership position. A principal who functions as a middle manager, rather than the key decision maker, serves as a go-between bridging the district office and the school community. In an intermediary position, the school leader becomes a reactionary buffering the staff from external pressures while meeting the demands from district, state, and federal policy makers (Adamowski & Petrilli, 2007).

Principals report that when demands place them in a clearly subservient role to the central office, their stress is greatly heightened (West, Peck, & Reitzuq, 2010). Anxiety is further heightened as principals attempt to implement or circumvent underdeveloped and unsupported policies that might lack well-planned implementation. In this case, the district policy reliance on one standardized test score as a primary tool for accountability leads a highly regarded principal to consider potentially unethical actions. Moreover, when the important results of education are thought to be exact as measured by one test score, educators often succumb to pressure to focus on the test rather than on comprehensive student learning goals (Schlechty, 2011).

In many instances, principals find the middle management role is untenable due to pressure from the top to comply with district directives and pressure from school constituents to support school needs. This pressure is most likely to be seen in personnel decisions. Consider union contracts that mandate staff be transferred, regardless of qualifications, to schools with an open position. School requirements for student needs, staffing concerns, and unique cultural context take a back seat to compliance with district mandates or union contracts. The difference between the amount of authority that principals believe necessary to be effective leaders and the amount they actually have has been coined as the “autonomy gap” (Adamowski & Petrilli, 2007). This gap clearly defines the chasm between a principal’s desire to exert strong leadership and the weakened position that often results from district mandates disconnected from school reality.

Yet, some principals manage to navigate these troubled waters by building strong relationships and informal networks throughout the district hierarchy. Exhibiting finely honed political and people skills, they work the system and know the right people, for example, befriending the HR Director might lead to advantages for their school, including more autonomy in making personnel decisions (Adamowski & Petrilli, 2007). When considering this informal power structure and web of influence developed through relationships, the teacher in the case described above might be a casualty due to Principal Tom’s lack of ability or time to forge a relationship with the new superintendent. The principal is unable to influence her perception or opinion of Tom and his teacher.

Consider also that Tom has boxed himself into a thought pattern or a dilemma by considering only two options: follow the superintendent’s directive or support the teacher. The two-option dilemma creates a difficult decision when one apparently equally unacceptable choice is pitted against the other. However, a third choice or a way between the dilemmas might be possible with careful deliberation. Kidder (1995) terms this third option, a “trilemma.” It is the result of careful and creative thinking pointing toward a middle course of action different from the first two obvious choices. Are there third options or trilemma choices that might be available to Tom?

Another view of the principal’s potential course of action is to consider the concept of benefit maximization (Strike, Haller, & Soltis, 2005). This principle holds that when faced with a choice, the best and most just decision is the one that results in the greatest benefit for the most people. Thus, actions are judged by consequences, and the best decision is the one with the best overall results. Using the benefit maximization lens, might it be argued that recognizing the teacher’s relational work with students justifies manipulation of test results and giving preknowledge of items not covered in the adopted curriculum? Shapiro, Gross, and Shapiro (2008) write that “The education leader should consider first and foremost what is in the best interests of the student, then determine what is in the best interest of all the staff” (p. 20) when making ethical decisions. Yet, as we see in this case, an accurate analysis of what is best for the student is not always immediately evident.

The practice of releasing test scores by teacher name is a legal and political issue to discuss with students. A court battle is underway regarding the legality of releasing test score information by teacher name. Teacher union officials dismiss the accuracy of the reports citing the wide margin of error for many of the ratings. However, advocates for releasing the data, complete with teacher names, dismiss these concerns, arguing that the public has a right to know. Unions counter that credible, accurate assessments rather than guesswork is the key to providing relevant information. Arguments might be made to support both policy positions.

Principal Tom’s situation also raises the question of how principals respond to pressure either in ways that help or harm them personally or professionally. Unfortunately, the way out of a stressful and personally painful situation often results in a negative choice. Healthy habits are abandoned, and overindulgence in food or drink may follow. Depression and broken relationships may not be far behind. Polka and Litchka (2008) list the following coping dispositions that lead to resilience under stress: good decision-making skills, assertiveness, impulse control, problem-solving skills. In addition, the authors state that a sense of humor, internal locus of control, a positive view of a personal future, and personal competence are important characteristics for a principal to possess.

Discussion Questions