The other day I had an idea, or rather a question, that I want to pose - is it truly necessary to employ a "principal" to guide a school the size of Pioneer, rather than having the job carried out by more than one person?
Although the comparison doesn't truly fit, as the principal does not rule its school, instead merely oversees its staff and departments, ensures that all the school's cogs are functioning and sets the general direction/attitude the school should take, I'll make it anyway: the Roman Republic (which I have been studying far too much of lately). While transplanting the entire government into a school like this one - the three-tiered system of consuls, senate and tribune - would not be feasible, having two "consuls" or three "triumvirs" man the top position of the school would. Without slowing down the administrative duties of the principal, redesigning the "principalship" in this way would check the power of any one principal and potentially widen the scope of its representation.
It has certainly been evident that the new administration has brought with it a new direction in which it is currently taking our school. I will not attempt to explain exactly what the old stance was, nor will I try to evaluate the new one - I don't know enough about either. However, it is obvious that a change has occurred, and many students are not happy about it. Principal White inherited a school he felt could be vastly improved. To fix it, he is, among other things, putting in security cameras. In light of the reaction of the student body, staff and the public to the decision, it seems conceivable that the proposal would not have been green-lighted had there been another administrator - Mr. White's equal - whose agreement would have been needed. In this case, the camera's may well have been ok'd regardless of who was in charge. In future matters, though, a more equal distribution of power may solve similar problems.
The main concern that has been raised whenever the job of one is awarded to two or more is that of accountability. Each of every member of the party has someone else onto which he or she can pawn the blame if something goes wrong or steal the praise if it goes right, as consulates would do in Ancient Rome (this point has been raised in reference to the Clinton campaign, arguing that Hillary and Bill Clinton could act in this way). My only response to this is that I would hope the principals would not sneak behind the other's back in making choices. At Pioneer, with so much specialization having been created, the principal doesn't often make wide-ranging, school-altering decisions (someone correct me if I'm wrong about this). Going back the surveillance cameras example, the administration's plan was made very public (albeit partly out of controversy) and would never have gotten as far as it has without the complete consent of Mr. White - or, of both or all principals.
Another necessary measure that would have to be taken by the school were this system to ever be considered is that both or all the principals were chosen by a third party (a vote by a high-ranking and well-informed panel of school officials at Balas, for example.) This way, the principals could selected so as to have the best of both worlds: different enough that they control each other and filter out the bad ideas of the other, similar enough that they aren't constantly at an impasse and suffocate the school. This, too, may be nothing more than wishful thinking. However, I can't help but wonder if there isn't a more stable way to govern a school.
To be continued, maybe. . .
No comments:
Post a Comment