Educational Leadership and School Improvement Portfolio

Title:   “Know Your Local Politics”  

Questions:

1.         Did the administrator develop a continuing dialogue with the economic and political

decision-makers in the community concerning the importance of the athletic facility to students?

2.         Did the administrator build collaborative relationships with the members of the community

who were very influential in the passage of the SPLOST?

 3.        Did the administrator participate in the larger context through active participation in the

political decision-making process to improve student’s opportunities?

Relevant Standards:

(6.1) Develop a continuing dialogue with economic and political decision-makers concerning the role of schools and social and educational opportunities for children.

(6.2) Build collaborative relationships with students, parents, members of the school board, and other community members that support improved social and educational opportunities for children.

(6.3) Influence the larger context through active participation in political and policy decision-making in the service of education, including proactive use of the legal system to protect students’ rights and improve students’ opportunities.

Situation:

Mr. Johnson is the principal of a small city high school located in a rural area of southeast Georgia. For years, the high school had used the local recreation department facilities to compete in sports such as football, baseball, and tennis. Being a former coach, Mr. Johnson was aware of the importance of football to the local community. After becoming a principal, Mr. Johnson began to explore the possibility of building a sports complex on the grounds of the high school to better serve the needs of his students and the community. To build this facility, the principal (working in conjunction with the superintendent and the board of education) suggested that a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) could be used to build such a facility on the campus of the high school. The board of education put the matter to a public vote. The first SPLOST vote was a disaster. Some influential local businesspeople ran advertisements in the newspaper and radio that were against passing the SPLOST. As a result, the first SPLOST vote failed by a four to one margin.

Realizing the significance of this defeat, the principal researched the opposition to the SPLOST and learned that a few influential community members believed the school system had no need for the money and that the money the school system had now was not being handled appropriately. To raise awareness of the need for the student athletic complex, the principal formed an athletic facility group that consisted of prominent people in the local community. With their support, the principal was able to build a case for building an athletic facility and increase awareness of how this facility would directly benefit both students and the community. Over the period of a year, the athletic facility group met and researched the cost of the sports complex. After getting several bids, the committee learned that the facility would cost approximately 5 million dollars to build. The principal proposed that the members of the athletic facility committee meet him at the bank to sign a joint note for the loan to build the facility. Needless to say, the athletic committee members did not feel that this was a good idea. The athletic facility members saw the need for the facility, but they were not willing to involve their personal assets in such a transaction.

A few weeks after this meeting, the principal was contacted by one of the influential businesspeople who had originally been against SPLOST. After engaging in a dialogue with the original detractors of SPLOST, the principal learned that this group of individuals would support the SPLOST if the funds were first used to pay off a loan that had been taken by the school system to build the new middle school in addition to building an athletic complex at the high school. At the next opportunity, the SPLOST was put to a vote again and this time it passed by a 3 to 1 margin. The SPLOST funds were used to pay off the middle school note and build a new football field, field house, baseball field, girl’s softball field, and tennis courts at the high school.

 Answers to Questions:

1.         Did the administrator develop a continuing dialogue with the economic and

political decision-makers in the community concerning the importance of the athletic

facility to students?

At first, Mr. Johnson did not develop a dialogue with community members that explained the

importance of the student athletic complex. As a result, the first SPLOST attempt to build the

athletic facility failed. Realizing his oversight, the principal formed an athletic complex committee

to research the idea further and build support for the project in the community by involving

prominent community members. By creating this committee with prominent community members,

he laid the groundwork for an open dialogue which eventually led to the passage of the SPLOST

and the building of the athletic facility.

2.         Did the administrator build collaborative relationships with the members of the

community who were very influential in the passage of the SPLOST?

At first, the SPLOST proposal was defeated four to one because influential community members

had not been involved or informed in the process. Some very prominent community members were

concerned about the use of funds and the administrator had not established a collaborative

relationship with them. Recognizing his error, Mr. Johnson started over by building collaborative

relationships with other prominent community members to gain their support for the project. By

involving other influential community members in the athletic facility committee, the principal was

able to build a new collaborative relationship with the original detractors of the SPLOST. This new

collaborative relationship led to a mutual agreement to what was best for the school system and

the students and the passage of the SPLOST on the second try.

3.         Did the administrator participate in the larger context through active participation

in the political decision-making process to improve student’s opportunities?

After learning the politics of his local community, the administrator was able to gain and exert

political influence by establishing collaborative relationships and engaging in an ongoing dialogue

with influential community members. By actively building these new political relationships and

gaining support for the idea of a new complex that would benefit students, he was able to achieve

his goal of establishing a top notch athletic facility and football complex on the school grounds.

Evaluation of the principal’s leadership style:

Based on the information collected, I would rate the principal’s leadership style as “Proficient”. At first, Mr. Johnson attempted to pursue his goal of building a new athletic complex for students without securing community support for his ideas. Mr. Johnson learned from his initial mistake. He quickly established an open dialogue about the athletic facility and built collaborative relationships with influential community members by involving them in the athletic facility committee. Through the athletic facility committee, he built a case for the need for a new athletic facility and established a desire to obtain one in the local community. Also, by working collaboratively with the original detractors of SPLOST he was able to address their original concerns about financial management, gain their support, and get a top-quality athletic facility built for his students.