What we have here in the retraction, is the paper claiming that someone identified themselves as either "the principal" (sic) and/or "Dawn Hochsprung" (sic).

You have to consider all possible interpretations of the text, those being the first two.

So what you have is a rather incomplete retraction when you have two possible interpretations: one that may or may not be physically possible "principal" (could be the vice principal) or the one that most definitely couldn't be possible which is the interpretation of the retraction which would have you believe that someone identified themselves as Hochsprung herself but you would think a reporter would ask for a name.

Anyways, the third possible interpretation is that someone impersonated Hochsprung, and the text almost implies that by saying "someone claiming to be Hochsprung".

They need to fix their retraction to be more specific.

There is no excuse for them to be leaving things open to three differing interpretations like this.

How did they get a degree?