Urban Principal Autonomy and the Goldilocks Dilemma: Considering the Nature and Limits of Principal Power in New York City

Abstract

Some contemporary urban educational reformers believe that empowering principals with increased school-based autonomy will help them lead educational improvement more effectively. We consider this popular reform idea by examining how principals experienced and exerted autonomy in different forms in two distinct eras in New York City. Our findings suggest that principal autonomy as a centrally planned reform strategy for urban education encounters a Goldilocks dilemma: principal power is almost inevitably too hot or too cold, but never just right. However, principals can and do assert self-sourced autonomy in which they recognize and exercise whatever power they may have within prevailing organizational constraints, conditions, and restrictions. We conclude by examining implications.

Implementing school autonomy in a medium-sized urban school district: the potential of principals' networks for increasing capacity and effectiveness

“…Tight coupling relationships were observed for teaching and learning, meaning that often principal enactment of this autonomy was aligned with the district's instructional vision (Wong et al, 2020). However, due to central office policies that hindered decision-making, looser coupling was noted for discipline, budget, and staffing (Gobby et al, 2022;Peck Accountability has also increased alongside autonomy as part of the reform movement in the United States (Honig, 2012;Neeleman, 2019). Accountability-related reform relies predominantly on state test scores as a measure of academic performance (Bae, 2018;Darling-Hammond, 2022).…”

“…found that principals and districts tend to be aligned on instruction-related items. However,Dillon (2011) argues that districts must exert more control over what is centrally controlled and what can be locally managed, advocating that leader capacity alone should determine levels of autonomy.Finally, treating autonomy as an all-or-nothing game where a principal has complete or no autonomy is short-sighted Peck & Lewis-Durham (2022). assert that principals believe autonomy should be more genuinely balanced; there is usually either too much or too little.…”