By Grant Simpson, PhD
An old adage of professionalism was to avoid politics at all costs. Even 20 years ago, it was still “unseemly” for teachers or administrators to be too politically active (e.g., involved in school board campaigns), but with the onslaught of accountability measures, the pressures of special interest groups, and the organized efforts of agenda-driven factions, political action is now an expectation of survival.
My wife and I were principals in the same large district in the 80s. The actions of the tumultuous school board added to the challenges of leadership. One board member up for reelection was both elitist and destructive. A small group of administrators gathered secretly to find a strong candidate to oppose him. We met at night with city leaders and political gurus; we developed a possible list of candidates; and we learned a little about how to play the game. We approached a prestigious lawyer with three children in the district and asked him to run. His entry into the race resulted in the target board member’s decision not to run again.
Over the next few months, our coven grew to include more principals from all over town. We actively worked in the campaign, put signs in our yard, helped get people out to vote on election day. We did so in a climate of disapproval and at some risk to job security. Bottom line? We won, and the next six years were marked by stability and a concerted focus on what was best for students. Would we do it again? In a heartbeat.
Today’s school leaders cannot ignore the community- at-large. Indeed, principals readily cite the increased political nature of their job demands more visibility in the community and facilitation skills in managing groups with disparate interests. The days of campuses being islands or safe havens from these pressures are long gone.
The correction? Leaders must be proficient in handling conflicting opinions. Indeed, they should seek them out. Giving voice to differences is not only a way of managing them, but also an opportunity for the continued articulation of the moral purpose and shared values at your campus.
Example? A first-year principal in a changing neighborhood quickly learned the PTA executive committee was dominated by members of the church across the street. Because the previous administrator had retired several years before actually leaving, the PTA had great sway in how things ran. Power struggles loomed on the horizon. The first one to raise its head came unexpectedly from a parent who requested a conference with the new principal. The parent was Jewish, and he very politely pointed out that every PTA meeting began with prayers that included Jesus. He asked not for the removal of prayer, but for consideration of more generic devotion, not only for the Jewish members of the community, but also for the growing Vietnamese population which was largely Buddhist. He further added that a nationally known atheist lived right down the street and was actively looking for issues to soapbox. The young principal stared major politics right in the face.
Because it was unseemly and deemed unprofessional, the young principal’s recent administrative coursework did not include how to handle such issues. His instincts were to avoid a direct confrontation by suggesting to the PTA that the devotions be done by students. They took the bait, and he was able to do some simple, ecumenical modeling in this community. Likewise, throughout his first year, he found ways to give “voice” to many constituencies, not just the one that
had grown used to control. It was not without conflict. The struggles to come were necessary tensions in school improvement. Now older, the principal admits to not really knowing exactly what he was doing but feels good about “following his heart.”
The significance? Politics is messy and fraught with conflict. We attach a negative valence to conflict. It needs resolution, even if it’s laden with discomfort. Avoiding conflict is not only self-protective, but also consistent with “running a tight ship” and seeking equilibrium. However, these management notions have slipped away. Education today has been described as constant whitewater. Given that milieu, school leaders must learn to proactively bring voices to the table. Not being good at it is an insufficient excuse. If it’s hard for you, then begin to develop those on campus who are more natural at or open to facilitating this. School improvement requires lots of dialogue. The harmony we seek cannot happen with just one voice.
Dr. Simpson’s column, “Mistakes School Leaders Make,” was published in TEPSA News from 2009-2017.
TEPSA News, November/December 2010
Copyright © 2010 by the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association. No part of articles in TEPSA publications or on the website may be reproduced in any medium without the permission of the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association.
