MiE

Building budgets and trust

through the alchemy of
superintendent leadership

Management in Education
24(2) 4650
The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0892020610363083
mie.sagepub.com

James J. Bird
University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Abstract
Superintendents have the burden and the opportunity to exert leadership through the budget-building process. This
article details a dozen tenets which can be implemented by practicing superintendents. Doing so increases the chances
of building trust among the stakeholders of administrators, staff, community, and school board members. The district
superintendent of schools occupies the only positional office in the organization capable of orchestrating this process.
Keywords
Superintendents, leadership, trust, budget building

After serving as a school administrator for 31 years, the last

16 as a superintendent, this writer became a university
faculty member and began teaching graduate students
school finance. In preparing for these courses, it was found
that very little material exists which gives specific guidelines for the practising superintendent in the area of leading
a district in financial matters. What follows is a list of tenets
that superintendents should keep in mind as they navigate
the swirling waters of school finance. A key underlying
belief is that the superintendent plays the pivotal role in the
organisation of a school district. Indeed, the superintendent
is the only person who has the positional authority to access
the power domains of Board, central staff, principals,
teacher associations, parental groups, community groups
and local/state governmental structures. Thus the playing
field of school finance provides the superintendent with a
unique opportunity to exert effective leadership and to
build trust among stakeholders. Superintendents need to
seize this opportunity and embrace its challenges.
Because this is an international journal, a quick summary of the structure of the United States educational system and the roles of its key actors seems appropriate. In the
United States, the structural organisation of the public
schools impacts upon the manner by which school administrators operate. Because education is not mentioned in the
Constitution, the responsibility for education is reserved to
the individual states. Each state has established a system of
local public school districts. While some states have their
school districts geographically aligned with local county
governments, others have their school districts completely
separate from local county governments. The former are
known as fiscally-dependent school districts as they lack
taxing authority and need to have their budgets approved
by their county governments; the latter are known as fiscally-independent school districts as they have taxing

authority and establish their own budgets. Public schools

are supported by a mixture of property taxes, sales taxes,
income taxes and other sources (lottery proceeds, excise
taxes, etc.). The revenue proportions of this mixture vary
from state to state. In all cases, the school district is controlled by a citizens group of five to nine locally elected
Board of Education members who serve a term of office
prescribed by the state, usually four years. The Board of
Education then hires a chief executive officer who is commonly known as the superintendent of schools.
The superintendent has a direct employment contract
with the Board of Education and is responsible for
implementing the Boards policies through his or her
administration. The superintendent usually has a cabinet
of central staff administrators who support the districts
school operations. Depending on the size of the district,
individual school principals report directly to the school
superintendent or to the superintendents designee, such
as an assistant superintendent for instruction. Principals are
typically held responsible for all activities that occur in
their respective buildings. Resources needed to operate
schools (staff, equipment, housing, supplies, etc.) are
generally allocated to the individual schools by the district
office and the principal then distributes the resources across
the school as he or she deems appropriate. While some
large city or county school districts can have more than
100,000 students, most school districts are in the range of
3,000 to 12,000 students.

Corresponding author:
James J. Bird, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Department of
Educational Leadership, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte,
NC28223.
Email: [email protected]

Bird
If a practising superintendent were to venture into the
literature of school finance he or she would find traditional
treatments of legislative revenue/expenditure structures
(e.g. Brimley & Garfield, 2008; Cubberley, 1906; King
et al., 2003), evolving court cases (King et al., 2003) and
treatises concerning the parameters of adequacy, equity and
the pursuit of excellence (King et al., 2003; Reyes &
Rodriguez, 2004). The process functions of budgeting,
planning and accounting would receive attention (Brimley
& Garfield, 2008; Fullerton, 2004; Goertz & Hess, 1998;
Gonzales & Bogotch, 1999; Miles & Roza, 2006; Reyes
& Rodriguez, 2004; Slosson, 2000; Stiefel et al., 2003).
Before long, one would come upon the many studies of
school effectiveness which purport to measure student
performance gains (King et al., 2003). While all of this literature is necessary to develop a sense of the lay of the
land it is not sufficient to help the practising superintendent lead their district toward the creation of budgets which
will increase the chances of their students experiencing
veritable and sustained performance improvements.
Todays superintendents operate in highly charged political arenas. Orchestrating the interchange of educational
providers and consumers, mediating the competing values
of constituencies as they hover over scarce resources and
doing so on a playing field that has murky cause/effect
metrics and unclear goal consensus require that the
contemporary superintendent be on top of their game.
Superintendents would be well advised to extend their
reading into the areas of positive organisational scholarship
(Cameron et al., 2003) and authentic leadership (Avolio &
Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004; Begley, 2001; Eagly,
2005; George et al., 2007; Goffee & Jones, 2005; Michie
& Gooty, 2005) to supplement their school finance expertise. The blending of content (school finance) and process
(leadership) would aptly fatten their tool boxes and
increase their chances not only of survival but of flourishing as well.
A fundamental belief that underpins the following dozen
tenets is that the budget-building process is a public activity
and needs to have the superintendents leadership style fingerprints all over it. As Slosson (2000: 54) states, it is the
social aspects of school harmony and climate that dictate an
open even transparent budgeting method. You need a
process, and everyone, whether or not they agree, needs
to see that process happen in a public arena. This article
offers the following dozen tenets:
1. All the right numbers in all the right places is necessary but not sufficient to the development of a good budget.
The districts business manager and staff can probably put
the budget together over a long weekend by applying their
expertise and experience to the task. It would no doubt be
accurate, balanced and compliant but would it be an instrument for accomplishing instructional goals? Would the
resultant budget be understood by staff and community?
As Slosson (2000: 57) sardonically points out, district documents are created to meet state requirements and are virtually unreadable. With 12-digit accuracy, they provide a
lot of detail and no understanding. Also, if the budget document lacked an involvement process, would it increase the

47
level of trust across the many constituent groups that exist
in todays school districts? The superintendent has to be the
person who everyone identifies as the author of the districts budget. That is a leadership function. The business
manager plays the essential and critical role of technician.
This juxtaposition should not be construed as a diminution
of the business managers worth. Indeed, the business managers role is crucial but it also has to be subjugated to that
of the superintendents overall role of district leadership.
2. The budget-building process should create a forum
for transforming ideas into reality. Education is a very public process with many participants. The manner through
which a superintendent structures the management of the
intellectual capital of these participants is very important.
A system needs to be developed that enables and
encourages the effective expression and evaluation of
ideas. For regular operations, a two-tier system is recommended. Each building needs to create a recognised group
of participants who represent the sites stakeholders and an
overarching body needs to be created for the district level.
Building principals lead at the sites; the superintendent
leads at the district level. These forums generate and filter
ideas, concerns and suggestions for improvements in a prescribed, legitimate manner. When specialised needs arise
like the adoption of a new vision or the launching of a bond
issue campaign, a Friday evening/Saturday morning
community-Board-administrative retreat format has been
successfully used.
3. The budget-building process must provide access,
involvement, known procedures, representation, communication and documentation. Providing a playing field and a
set of rules for all of the stakeholders is a formidable but
necessary task. If this is not prescribed, they will make it
up and act accordingly much to the peril of the superintendent. As such, the inevitable conversations of competing
values vying for scarce resources then have a known playing
field. In its absence, these conversations take place without
rules or boundaries and the situation is analogous to playing
chess without a chessboard. Stiefel et al. (2003: 407)
observe that districts need to invest time in educating their
constituencies in the basic knowledge of the budgetbuilding processes in order for stakeholders to play meaningful roles. Because the myriad of groups are disparate
and often serve cross purposes, harnessing and orchestrating
their energies is a real challenge for the superintendent.
While the challenge is difficult, the superintendent is the
only person who can carry it off in a legitimate manner.
4. The budget must be tied to the assessment and instructional processes of the district. Marshalling scarce
resources requires some rhyme and reason. The logical
positing of rationale along instructional improvement is the
gold standard. The sequence goes something like this:
What do we want the students to know and be able to
do? How well are they doing? What needs to be done so
they get better? So if maths scores are down one would
expect a corresponding emphasis on maths instruction
resources on the expenditure side. This tenet also carries a
temporal component. The districts assessment, curriculum
revision and personnel calendars need to be aligned with the

48
districts budget-building process calendar. Only the superintendent can ensure that these too-often siloed functions
mesh for the benefit of each other and for the students. The
key ingredient to accomplishing this tenet is the creation of
an integrated budget timeline. This is a single calendar that
has entries from the business office, the curriculum office,
the human resources office and the superintendents office
depicting what functions need to be performed by whom and
by when so everything is synchronised. It should be publicly
adopted by the Board early in the school year.
5. The budget operationalises the districts philosophy,
vision and mission. If an idea or a concept does not receive
funding, it is not valued and any rhetoric professing otherwise does not build trust. This is a particularly difficult
tenet for Board members to grasp. Often public figures
want to do good deeds and make others happy. The reality
of finite resources can lead to disappointment and frustration. This intersection of desires and deliverables can be
dangerous territory for growing integrity. Superintendents
need to instill squeaky-clean honesty standards with all
concerned parties. Community trust is a cherished commodity which needs to be earned, nurtured and sustained.
There should be easily discernable linkages between that
which is professed and that which is funded.
6. The budget accentuates and clarifies the communication and leadership decision-making systems within the district. Weakness in any of the three systems (budget,
communications, decision-making) quickly causes havoc in
the other two. Who decides who gets what across the district is quickly known in the farthest corners of the district.
This hierarchy instantly replaces any official organisation
chart. The extent to which these three systems are aligned
and mutually support each other is the extent to which efficiencies exist in the operations of the district. A recalcitrant
custodian hoarding supplies should not determine the cleanliness of other buildings. Once again, the superintendent is
the sole person who can create, coordinate and police procedures that ensure compliance across these domains.
7. Questions about the budget are encouraged and no
question goes unanswered. Transparency is a buzz word
that is bantered about but it fits here. The budget-building
process has to be open to the public within a school district.
This goes beyond the legal requirements inherent in the
official adoption process. It is another opportunity for
building trust with the communities of interest across the
district. Treating all groups and individuals equally is
essential from bargaining groups to casual observers, from
Board members to students, from parents to business owners. The fact that the superintendent requires that the questions be considered legitimate regardless of source and
instructs staff to genuinely respond with complete answers
is more important in the long run than the answers themselves. A questioning person is a concerned person. The
interaction of a question/answer exchange cements engagement and fosters investment. Even if the answer is unpalatable, if it is authentic, genuine and consistent, chances are
it will be respected. While over-communication can lead to
boredom among constituent groups under-communication
can lead to disenfranchised constituent groups. Proactively

Management in Education 24(2)

hitting the road circuit of faculty meetings, PTA meetings
and community service club meetings to first glean ideas
and input and then to share information is a staple of a
savvy superintendent.
8. There are many horses in this field but only the superintendent has the reins. Regardless of district size, the creation of a budget and its eventual implementation attracts
many actors. Chaos theory may provide explanations to
random occurrences but for practical purposes only the
superintendents active engagement can orchestrate effective implementation of the budget reflective of district
goals and vision. Fiefdoms with cross purposes can emerge
to the detriment of the whole organisation. Competing
camps like instruction/non-instruction, building sites/central office or academics/athletics must learn to coexist for
the good of children. Only the superintendent (sheriff)
defines when the district (town) is big enough for all of
them to reside in peacefully and effectively.
9. All of the slices have to fit before the budget is
complete and whole. Like the student master schedule of
a high school where student requests, staff licensure, room
availability and seat counts must mesh, the budget is not
functional until each revenue is recorded and each expenditure appropriated. Pleas for more goods or services have
to be balanced with concomitant reductions in other expenditures or increases in other revenues. This required incremental balancing seems at times to be lost on all except the
superintendent and effective Board members. No one else
has the responsibility for the whole all others have the
luxury of advocating for their respective special interests.
It falls upon the superintendent to set a course of inclusion
bearing in mind that which has the best chance of realising
stated goals. This tenet has temporal considerations as well.
Insertion of items into the budget at the last minute to curry
votes can be very threatening to the integrity of the process.
Those suggesting additional items need also shoulder the
responsibility of identifying corresponding deleted items
so that the balanced budget is sustained. Once again, the
superintendent is in the unique leadership position to police
such actions.
10. Budget-building is a daily, not a seasonal activity.
Decisions to spend/save, support/oppose or stretch/discard occur daily throughout the year. Raising everyones
attention to the need for careful stewardship of resources
is increasingly important. Successful superintendents
will create a culture of diligence with regard to the use
of district resources. Superintendents need to clearly
show how the dots are connected between student needs
and instructional costs, between salaries/attendant benefits and job attractiveness or between reading skill
acquisition and early childhood parental behaviour. This
is not to say that the budget-building calendar contains
all days of equal importance. There are highlights along
the way like input deadlines, decision dates and adoption sequences, but if everyone involved thinks about
budget matters seamlessly and daily, they will be better
prepared to act appropriately. Sometimes it is difficult to
place a calendar on creativity and sometimes the superintendent is placed in the situation of having to say,

Bird
That is a great idea but it is either six months too late
or six months too early for getting it into this particular
budget cycle. A final thought on temporal factors centres on the inevitable bumps and bruises suffered by
those who feel that their ideas, wants or needs were not
addressed. They will be present for the next budget
cycle and their support is needed. If the process is
perceived to be open and fair they will continue to participate. Superintendents need their participation. Superintendents who allow or accept process dropouts do so
at their own peril.
11. The annual external audit is required but must be
augmented by daily scrutiny to ensure that all transactions
are beyond reproach. While the Board is really the client of
the external audit team, the auditors work closely with district administrators and business office staff. During these
sessions, the superintendent needs to push and challenge
the auditing team to look behind every door and under
every rock in pursuit of any misdeeds. The auditors need
to know that the superintendent is squeaky-clean and that
the superintendent wants the entire school system also to
be squeaky-clean. The superintendent should not be content that the auditing team did not find anything askew but
rather that they aggressively sought wrongdoing and were
directed to do so by the superintendent. One has to guard
against the nave oversight and inadequate management
information systems that Fullerton (2004: 18) describes.
Any suspicious behaviour or procedure, however vague
or seemingly innocent, needs to be brought to the attention
of the auditing team for its investigation. In any school
district there are countless exchanges of cash (school
lunches, gate receipts, field trip fees), procedures (reimbursements, overtime tallies, salary schedule placements)
and activities (fund-raising, parent-teacher association
operations, community partnerships) which are enacted,
by necessity, by non-finance folk (teachers, parents,
volunteers). This environment can attract the unscrupulous. In short, the district superintendent has a huge vulnerability here and must insist upon meticulous
surveillance and strict adherence to written guidelines to
increase the chances of successfully running a clean ship.
Setting a strict tone of probity from day one, overtly reinforcing this stance repeatedly and holding any wrongdoing to severe consequences is the course to follow.
Blithely thinking that all is well because nothing has happened yet is inviting a possible blindsiding which could
end ones career and rain long-term havoc on the
community.
12. First among all equals in a superintendents world
of stakeholders is the elected Board of Education. The
superintendent needs to effectively and adroitly accomplish several essential steps along the path to budget adoption. Realistic goal-setting is the most important because
all else flows from these targets. A Board decisionmaking calendar needs to be grafted onto the integrated
budget timeline mentioned earlier. This mechanism judiciously allocates the time necessary for prudent deliberations and community involvement. It is this writers
experience that Boards have a propensity to procrastinate

49
and that they are never in a hurry to make a controversial
decision. Goals should be programmatically listed with
accompanying financial support costs attached. The
Board should be led to establish a suitable target figure for
fund equity early in the process. All communication rules
should be agreed upon at the start of the process. The
administration needs to develop a background information system which provides the Board with accessible,
accurate and easy-to-understand data on all aspects of district operations. This would include regular annual
updated material on standard formats and also unusual
topics of a more random, transitory origin. Any additional
information requested by one Board member should be
shared equally with all Board members. Board presidents
must understand their specialised roles of mediator, arbiter and coalition builder. Ideas or suggestions for inclusion regardless of source should be presented to the
Board accompanied by cogent pros and cons and an
administrative sense of consequences. While the Board
exercises its fiduciary responsibility by making the final
decisions on the budget, the superintendent with the business office staff expertise needs to formulate options
and subsequent recommendations outlining the Boards
parameters for its choices. Here again, the superintendent
occupies a pivotal organisational position in the vortex
of staffBoard, communitydistrict, taxpayerparent
relationships.
In summary, as Slosson (2000: 54) opines, the budget
isnt just about money its about politics. Its about feeling
valued and affirmed. If you dont pay attention to all the social
and emotional aspects, youll hurt the schools working
climates. The budget-building process presents a unique
opportunity for the superintendent to exert leadership for
the accomplishment of district goals. Failure to seize this
opportunity greatly reduces the superintendents chances
for success. Specific steps have been presented to build the
necessary trust within the districts stakeholders. Orchestrating these actions requires the positional authority that
only the superintendent possesses. The superintendency
is the linchpin around which district communication and
decision-making systems revolve. The budget-building
process is much greater than just a flurry of action in June.
It can be the fabric with which the superintendent weaves a
sustainable partnership of people, purpose and movement
towards desired goals. The dozen tenets listed above serve
as a clear road map suggesting focused leadership actions
for superintendents.
References
Avolio, B. & Gardner, W. (2005) Authentic leadership
development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 31538.
Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Walumbwa, F., Luthans, F. & May, D.
(2004) Unlocking the mask: a look at the process by which
authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors.
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 80123.
Begley, P. (2001) In pursuit of authentic leadership practices.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4, 35365.

50
Brimley, V. Jr & Garfield, R. R. (2008) Financing education in a
climate of change (10th edn). Boston: Pearson.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J. & Quinn, R. (eds) (2003) Positive organizational scholarship: foundations of a new discipline. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Cubberley, E. P. (1906) School funds and their apportionment.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Eagly, A. (2005) Achieving relational authenticity in leadership:
does gender matter? Leadership Quarterly, 16, 45974.
Fullerton, J. (2004) Mounting debt. Education Next, 4(1), 1119.
George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A. and Mayer, D. (2007) Discovering your authentic leadership. Harvard Business Review,
85, 12938.
Goertz, M. E. & Hess, G. A. Jr (1998) Process and power in
school budgeting across four large urban school districts.
Journal of Education Finance, 23(4), 490506.
Goffee, R. & Jones, G. (2005) Managing authenticity: the paradox of great leadership. Harvard Business Review, 83, 8794.
Gonzales, K. & Bogotch, I. (1999) Fiscal practices of high school
principals: managing discretionary school funds. NASSP Bulletin, 83, 3748.
King, R. A., Swanson, A. D. & Sweetland, S. R. (2003) School
finance: achieving high standards with equity and efficiency
(3rd edn). Boston: Pearson.
Michie, S. & Gooty, J. (2005) Values, emotions, and authenticity: will the real leader please stand up?. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 44157.

Management in Education 24(2)

Miles, K. H. & Roza, M. (2006) Understanding student-weighted
allocation as a means to greater school resource equity. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(3), 3962.
Reyes, A. H. & Rodriguez, G. M. (2004) School finance: raising
questions for urban schools. Education and Urban Society,
37(1), 321.
Slosson, J. (2000) Taming the budget process. Principal Leadership, 1(3), 547.
Stiefel, L., Schwartz, A. E., Portas, C. & Kim, D. Y. (2003)
School budgeting and school performance: the impact of New
York Citys performance-driven budgeting initiative. Journal
of Education Finance, 28(3), 40324.

Biography

James J. Bird, PhD, is an assistant professor on the faculty of

educational leadership at the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte. He was a public school administrator for 31 years,
the last 16 as superintendent of the Avondale Schools in
Auburn Hills, Michigan. His current research interests
include authentic leadership and school governance issues.
He did his doctoral and masters level work at Ohio State
University and his undergraduate studies at the University
of Wisconsin at La Crosse.