By: Dr. Armãndo R. Tolliver | SCHOLAR | July 31, 2012Public schools are funded through a variety of taxes and fees. The economic downturn and its dramatic result on tax revenues have affected state budgets nationwide (Jennings, 2003). With state finances in unprecedented trouble, school districts are faced with intensive budget cuts (Jennings, 2003). Inadequate funding and resources precipitate the challenges that affect student achievement and the well being of children (Guthrie, Hart, Ray, Candoli, & Hack, 2009; Kettering Foundation, 2011).
- Walker (2005) focused her research on organized resistance and
black educators' quest for school equality within the time period of
1878–1938. She identified four
periods of activism: “1) association building and interracial collaboration, 2)
intellectual activity and national collaboration, 3) petitions and shielded
collaboration, and 4) direct appeal” (p. 358).
- Benedict (2007) advocates the need for music educators to better
recount their role in the education scheme, rather than having other ones
enforce delineations and functions for them.
- Rademaker (2003) considers the implications of having advocates
for art external to the school system, a not-for-profit arts organization in
this case, involved in promoting arts programs within the school system. This research suggested that educators
have a responsibility to ensure that art educators within the system guide external
agencies.
- Shroyer et al., (2007) researched the Kansas State University
Professional Development School Partnership. In this specific initiative, the educator education program
at Kansas State University partnered with local schools to improve educating
and learning in K-12, while enhancing an educator-learning program at the
university.
These studies have implications for advocacy strategies that can
be used by school leaders. School
leaders advocate on behalf of their students and staff every day with the
decisions they make. An increasing scarcity of adequate school funding has forced
school leaders to take on a more extensive role in advocating to gain state
support for alternative financial resources (Guthrie et al., 209). This can be done through professional
development of the school leader alongside targeted advocacy efforts at the
building, district, and state level to promote robust financial support
(Education Policy & Leadership Center, 2012; National Association of
Secondary School Principals, 2012).
Current systems of funding
for education have many ties to political circuits. Saeki (2005) found there is a strong connection between the
state political system and funding for education. Saeki noted systemic determinants greatly explain the
educational spending by state governments; however, the partisanship in the
state legislature substantially influences the priority in educational
spending. Shaker and Heilman
(2004) presented a similar argument in their discussion of the way that
partisan politics has significantly influenced what the public knows about
public education. One of the
critiques of the prevalence of politics dominating the discussion about public
education is that the media too quickly accepts as the truth single research
studies that purport to support one political view or another (Shaker &
Heilman, 2004). It is imperative,
nonetheless, that school leaders be aware of how the media creates what Edelman
(1988) refers to as a “political spectacle” (as referenced in Anderson, 2007,
p. 107). Therefore, a school
leader must first be aware of the political systems in place that impact
funding as well as the market forces that influence education before they are
able to advocate within the prevailing political climate (Anderson, 2007;
Saeki, 2005; Shaker & Heilman, 2004).
The National Association of
Secondary School Principals (2012) suggest that school leaders can began to
advocate by first educating themselves on state and local policy in keeping up
to date on literature and information about education circulated by the
media. Similarly, a way for school
leaders to become more active in the field of education that will assist in
devising an advocacy strategy is through membership in professional
organizations. Lunenburg and
Ornstein (2008) suggested this approach allows school leaders to think forward
and consequentially, driven by a coherent long-term improvement plan that
requires substantial time and other resources. Often, organizations have regional affiliates that encourage
active member participation in committees and events, in addition to publishing
some of the major research journals in the field. One example of a professional organization is the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). The ASCD describes itself as “…a
community of educators, advocating sound policies and sharing best practices to
achieve the success of each learner” (ASCD, 2008). Becoming a member in professional organizations is a good
way to connect with other researchers, practitioners, and advocates that could
potentially benefit a school leaders advocacy plan. Likewise, subscribing to the journals of professional
organizations and those alike serve as a means to keep in tune with recent
literature and a way to practice personal development.
Next, targeted advocacy
efforts at the building, district, and state level are needed to promote robust
financial support. People and
ideas have to connect before change happens. Learning is driven by
desire, and desire for improvement drives the vision of a school district. Yet people within the school district
will desire different solutions to education challenges regarding financial
resources. The school leader
serves as a bridge between the school and external constituencies. Knowing why people desire things will
aid in incorporating their perspectives in the strategic plan used to advocate
for the school (Senge, 2000).
Systems will not change unless the people involved truly desire
change. Because the classroom, school,
and community are interrelated in a school district, each has its own
significant stake in educational outcomes. Thus, information needs to be introduced to each of these
groups in terms of their association with the school community. The previous statement is another way
of saying that everyone should be involved in activism—and all change is
preceded by gaining new perspectives on the contradictions inherent in the
school, improving judgment, and increasing their capacity to take purposeful
action based on the knowledge constituents discover (Blasé & Blasé, 2003;
Glickman, Gordon, & Ross- Gordon, 2010; Groth, 2011; Senge, 2000).
At the building level it is important to establish a close working
relationship and good communication among the leadership team and other faculty
and staff in the building. Cooperative team-based
organizational structures positively influence cooperation among faculty and
staff (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1994; Walker, 2005). Embedded within team-based
organizational structures is effective teamwork the hub around which improving
and advocating for education revolves (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1994;
Walker, 2005). Similarly, it is
essential to develop a strategic plan with long-term and short-term goals. The school leader must work to achieve these goals and then develop a formal presentation
for the faculty and staff promoting the school’s goals, successes, and
achievements. When presenting this
information to the school faculty and staff it is best to use data that illustrates the school in comparison to other
schools in the district or state attributed in part to a lack of financial
resources.
Whether or not change takes place is dependent on the thinking and
actions of the members of the school.
Policies and rules do not make things turn around, people do (Senge,
2000). It is difficult to change
the way people think.
Comprehensive two-way communication processes assist in interpreting
individuals attitudes, identify and help shape policies and procedures in the
public interest, and carry on involvement and information activities that earn
public understanding and support (Senge, 2000). Therefore, the school leader must constantly work to ensure
everyone uses feedback loops so that the school as a whole can keep constant
watch on where it is going and the effects of limited resources. Additionally the school leader must
keep the lines of communication open, reviewing all suggestions and input, and
always letting stakeholders know that their input is valued and it will take a
collaborative effort to get the alternative funding resources the students need
to get the best education. This
notion reiterates focusing on data to shift the reality with stakeholders and advocating
outside of the school walls (Benedict, 2007; Epstein, 2009; Portis
& Garcia 2007; Rademaker, 2003).
Parent and community
involvement is proven to support student success and serve as one of the
primary change agents within a school district (Epstein, 2009). The school leader needs to sell the
issues held by the school due to shortcomings from a lack of financial
resources to parents and the community. Again, share the data that illustrates the school in comparison to other schools in the
district or state attributed in part to a lack of financial resources
(Benedict, 2007; Rademaker, 2003; Shroyer, Yahnke, Bennett, & Dunn, 2007;
Walker, 2005). The school leader
must strategically and successfully communicate with stakeholders through regular
newsletters, speaking at board meetings, and Parent Teacher Organization (PTO)
meetings what efforts have to be made to resolve the financial issue and
advocate for alternative funding (Epstein, 2009; Rademaker, 2003). One of the most effective ways of
communicating with all of the stakeholders in public education is through the
media (Moses, 2007). Much of the information that
the public gets about education occurs through media outlets, newspapers, news
programs, and the Internet.
To maximize a
school leader’s advocacy for alternative funding, the school leader must be
actively involved with political entities
such as the school board and the teacher's union that have the greatest
power and sway over larger political forces (Portis & Garcia, 2007; Rademaker,
2003). Subsequently, the school
leader needs to find out who on the district staff handles education issues and
invite them to visit the school or visit them in their district offices,
offering their expertise as a resource on education issues (Education Policy & Leadership Center, 2012; National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 2012). Other communication
tactics that would aid the school leader in advocating on behalf of the school
aside from face-to-face meetings are phone calls and emails to the district
leaders. Similarly, school leaders
should attend town hall meetings and other events in district to ensure their
voices are heard. This would be an
optimal time to provide a hard copy of the formal presentation that was
presented to stakeholders at the building level to district leaders. The core component of the advocating
process hinge on the consensus derived from communication with those involved
with that specific phase (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2006).
According to
Spring (2002), “Similar to politicians and administrative politicians, school
board members will increasingly be buffeted by the forces of liberal and
conservative ideologies and special-interest groups representing religious,
racial, and ethnic populations” (p. 17).
Special interest groups, such as teachers unions, lobby politicians as a
means toward gathering political support for their particular area of interest.
They influence the political process both through the
numbers of participants in their groups and the amount of money that they are
able to use to support a particular agenda. District leaders and state legislatures are influential in
the political and policy-making processes, as well as increasingly subject to
political influence. Therefore,
the school leader needs to encourage faculty and staff to become involved in
voicing their concerns regarding the financial status of the school to the
local and state educators union.
Finally,
school leaders must try to mobilize and engage with state legislatures and
encourage other stakeholders to do the same (Education Policy & Leadership
Center, 2012; National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2012). Legislators have hectic schedules but
they especially want to hear from their own constituents, so it is important
for school leaders to ensure their voices are heard, through a variety of
communication channels (Education Policy & Leadership Center, 2012;
National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2012). One method of communication could
entail writing a letter, an email or fax to state legislatures. Writing a letter to state legislatures
provides direct and concise communication between the school leader and the
state legislatures that could incorporate compelling facts about education
funding issues (Education Policy & Leadership Center, 2012; National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 2012). Another effective way of informing state legislatures about
the concerns of constituents related to school funding could be to simply call
the elected official. Whether speaking
with the state legislature directly or leaving a message on the officials’
voicemail, it is important for the school leader to not only state his or her
position on the issue of school funding, but also what the school leader feels
should be done to alleviate the scarcity of financial resources.
A more direct
means of communication involves meeting with state senators and
representatives. Face-to-face
meetings allow for focused active conversations revolving around alternative
school funding and pitfalls that current policies place on schools (Education
Policy & Leadership Center, 2012; National Association of Secondary School
Principals, 2012). This also
creates an opportunity to build rapport with the elected official. If the elected representative, who
represents the school leader and their constituents, is acquainted with and
respects the school leader, the elected representative is more likely to be
open to input from the school leader (Education Policy & Leadership Center,
2012; National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2012). School leaders should also look out for
days during which legislators set aside time to meet with their own
constituents and schedule an appointment ahead of time and let the legislative
assistant know that they are coming in from out of town. Alternatively, the school leader can
organize a diverse group of constituents that is representative of the school
community to visit the elected official.
Bringing a
diverse group of individuals provide added perspectives, expertise, and
presence that a homogenous group or a single individual cannot (Seltzer,
2001). Examples of these factions
in the community include involvement of parents, community members, business
leaders, advocacy groups, school administrators, school staff, and
students. Again, the importance of
reliable data is crucial to prove the point being made by the school leader
(Benedict, 2007; Rademaker, 2003; Shroyer, Yahnke, Bennett, & Dunn, 2007;
Walker, 2005). Data can be a
strong factor in decision and policy-making, so the school leader must
effectively present data for change to occur. Subsequently, it serves as an added benefit if the elected
official understands the notion presented by the school leader and is convinced
that supporting the effort will be a political win for them come reelection
(Education Policy & Leadership Center, 2012). After the meeting it is imperative to follow-up with a thank
you note to the legislator. This
provides an opportunity to reiterate key points and add any information that
may not have been mentioned during the meeting.
Principals
must try to mobilize and engage with policymakers throughout the year at annual
meetings in Washington, DC, and encourage all members to have on-going meetings
with their representatives and senators in their district offices or local
communities (Education Policy & Leadership Center, 2012; National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 2012). The school leader should work with stakeholders at
both the building level and the school district to contact the media and send
continuous letters and emails to state legislators urging their support for
alternative financial resources (Benedict, 2007; Rademaker, 2003; Shroyer,
Yahnke, Bennett, & Dunn, 2007; Walker, 2005). Additionally, it would be beneficial to offer an invitation
for a school visit and follow up with the legislator’s local office.
Key players in this
initiative are the school leader and members of the community that will be
representative of the larger school community and will include all at stake:
parents, students, area residents, school alumni, local businesses,
representatives from faith-based/community-based organizations, members of the
local university community, and representatives from offices of locally elected
officials. The key to developing
cohesiveness in a group, according to Gorton et al. (2009), is the development
and maintenance of a high level of trust among the members and strategic
communication. If a group has a
high level of trust, its members will more openly express their thoughts,
feelings, concerns, and opinions.
Throughout the initiative there must be a level of commitment to keeping
stakeholders informed and involved (Benedict, 2007;
Rademaker, 2003; Shroyer, Yahnke, Bennett, & Dunn, 2007; Walker, 2005). Working together as a community will
assist schools with the funding needed to supply students with the quality
education they deserve (Benedict, 2007;
Rademaker, 2003; Shroyer, Yahnke, Bennett, & Dunn, 2007; Walker, 2005). Intensifying the methods of communication to reach a
broad audience remains a continuous task.
Through listening and discussing issues with stakeholders and political
brokers, the school leader advocates the making of decisions and implementing
policy that provides alternative funding for school resources. As the school leader practices personal
development, educates stakeholders, informs elected officials, and actively
participates as a constituent, advocacy for alternative funding is likely to be
accomplished.
Suggested Citation
Tolliver, A. R. (2012). Advocating to gain state support for alternative funding for school
resources. [Education Project
Online]. Retrieved online at http://www.educationprojectonline.com/2014/08/advocating-to-gain-state-support-for.html
References
Anderson, G. L. (2007). Media's impact on educational policies and practices: Political spectacle and social control . Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 103—120.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2007). About ASCD. ASCD.org.
Benedict, C. (2007). Naming our reality: Negotiating and creating meaning in the margin. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 15(1), 23–35.
Blase, J. R., & Blase, J. (2003). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2006). ISLLC Standards for School Leaders. CCSSO.org.
Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Education Policy & Leadership Center (2012). The Pennsylvania education advocacy network. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.eplc.org/public-advocacy/pa-education-advocacy-network/
Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2010). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (8th ed.). Needham Heights MA: Pearson- Allyn and Bacon.
Groth, R. E. (2011). Improving teaching through lesson study debriefing. Mathematics Teacher, 104(6), 446-451. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Guthrie, J. W., Hart, C. C., Ray, J. R., Candoli, I. C., & Hack, W. G. (2009). Federal governance and education finance. In Jones International University (Ed.), Managing learning organizations. Boston: Pearson Custom Education.
Jennings, J. (2003). IT in a time of budget cuts: How school funding will affect the quality of education. T.H.E. Journal, 30(6), 14-17.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). New circles of learning. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/194034/chapters/The-Cooperative-School.aspx
Kettering Foundation. (2011). Wicked problems. Dayton, OH: Author.
Lunenburg, F., & Ornstein, A. (2008). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (5th ed.). New York: Wadesworth/Cengage Learning.
Moses, M. (2007). The media as educators, educational research, and autonomous deliberation. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 150–165.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2012). The school leader. Retrieved from http://www.nassp.org/Content.aspx?topic=56558
Portis, C., & Garcia, M. (2007). The superintendent as change leader. School Administrator, 64(3), 18-27.
Rademaker, L. (2003). Community involvement in arts education: A case study. Arts Education Policy Review, 105(1),13–24.
Saeki, M. (2005). Systematic, political, and socioeconomic influences on educational spending in the American states. Review of Policy Research, 22(2), 245-256.
Philadelphia Coalition Advocating for Public Schools (2013). Statement on Corbett’s Relase of 45 million: “The governor is no friend to Philadelphia public schools.[image]. Retrieved from http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZ6VnXYx8TD7ydS7OSY1IT6Jup8OKQPc78FnTaop9sS7oo5AZvMwk4koM
Seltzer, M. (2001). Securing your organization’s future. Washington, DC: The Foundation Center.
Senge, P. M. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education (1st Currency pbk. ed.). New York: Doubleday.
Shaker, P., & Heilman, E. (2004). The new common sense of education: Advocacy research versus academic authority. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1444–1470.
Shroyer, G., Yahnke, S., Bennett, A., & Dunn, C. (2007). Simultaneous renewal through professional development school partnerships. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(4), 211–224.
Spring, J. (2002). Conflict of interest: The politics of American education. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Walker, V. S. (2005). Organized resistance and black educators' quest for school equality, 1878–1938. Teachers College Record, 107(3), 355–388.
No comments:
Post a Comment