others in the decision-making process leads to broader support for deci-
sions and better implementation.
The issue is not whether to collaborate—this is a given. The issue is
how to be sure that the plan or policy you want implemented will survive
this process and become the plan or policy for the school. The question
for you becomes: How can I manipulate the process to reach consensus
on what I know is best for my school? Manipulate is a strong word with
negative connotations. Convince is more politically correct, but not strong
enough. All of us who are school leaders must face a simple fact: We all
want what is best for children, and we will usually use whatever legal
means necessary to achieve this, including manipulation. This is the po-
litical side of school leadership.
In general, major decisions and policies will not be decided upon in
a timely fashion at meetings unless the groundwork is laid. The school
leader needs to speak to the key players one-on-one in advance to secure
their support. In this way, the meeting will not be a free-for-all discussion
with different individuals riding their own hobbyhorses, but a confirma-
tion of what has already been decided in a series of one-on-one conversa-
tions. There are several ways to lay the groundwork to get one’s ducks
in a row.
In New York City, the School Leadership Team (SLT), composed of
representatives from administration, staff (defined as representatives of
the teachers’ union, the United Federation of Teachers), parents, and, on
the high school level, students, is the major decision-making body in the
school. Most districts require schools to have a similar committee. In most
states and districts, this committee is advisory to the principal, who makes
and is responsible for all decisions; however, principals would be politically
inept if they ignored this team. The SLT is charged with two major roles:
the creation of the school’s Comprehensive Education Plan and budget. In
addition, it may explore almost any other aspect of school policy.
In some schools such committees are very large, sometimes composed
of twenty or more people. This is a mistake. The school leader, who has
latitude in determining the size of such an oversight committee, should
make it the smallest permitted by regulation. The fewer people on a com-
mittee, the greater the likelihood that consensus will be reached. A mini-
mal team for a high school in New York State has ten members:
100 Chapter 8