The Miracle on Bagley Road

School Administrator, Dec, 1995 by Robert P. Kreiner, William G. O'Callaghan, David P. Moore

How One School District Used Unconventional Means to Pass a Tax Levy in a Hostile Environment

When issues can only be resolved by public action, an engaged public rather than a persuaded public is a necessity.

Ours is a story about making the transition from selling an idea to engaging a school community. It's about understanding the connection between how people form relationships with public concerns and the practical need to pass school tax levies.

While conventional thinking about how to communicate with the public runs deep, our experiences in several Ohio school districts show that engaging the public is not only possible, it works.

Unlikely Conditions

Voters in the Olmsted Falls City School District in Olmsted Falls, Ohio, were not ready a year ago for another tax increase. Having approved 21 new mills of taxes between 1987 and 1991, many residents still were upset about the board of education's decision to construct additions to two elementary schools instead of replacing a deteriorating middle school building.

It also was a year of property reappraisal, which meant higher property taxes for most homeowners and much of the business community. City officials had just announced large increases in sewer and water assessments. Meanwhile, more than 1,000 senior citizens living in a nearby mobile home park had organized and were prepared to defeat any tax increase that appeared on the ballot.

This is what it was like last November when Olmsted Falls voters passed two school levies that added 12.63 mills of property taxes to build a middle school, expand the high school, and increase operating revenue for the 2,800-student school district in a suburb southwest of Cleveland.

Public Contact

So what happened to pull off the improbable? Was it a miracle, or was it something else?

Actually, it was a little of both. The successful campaign at the polls represented a massive shift in how school leaders connected with the public for 18 months prior to the Nov. 8 election. It was miraculous in the sense that paradigm shifts of this magnitude are rare.

The fact that Olmsted Falls school leaders were able to relate in a meaningful way with the public is of critical importance when analyzing why and how this miracle on Bagley Road occurred.

We took as a starting point some essential advice contained in a benchmark study called "Meaningful Chaos," published in 1993 by the Kettering Foundation, which detailed how people form relationships with public concerns. One major finding was that the conventional approach of trying to reach the public through persuasion alone does not work if you are asking people to make a decision that requires sacrifice. When issues can only be resolved by public action, such as voting for a tax increase, an engaged public rather than a persuaded public is a necessity. The events in Olmsted Falls support this conclusion.

The Difference

What led to the miracle on Bagley Road--the address of three of the district's four schools as well as the central office--was a year-and-a-half of public engagement. With the exception of the two months immediately preceding the election, little or no blatant "selling" or "persuading" occurred--at least in the traditional sense.

The school community used several methods to engage people in the communitywide conversation about the financial and educational needs of the Olmsted schools:

* Unconventional leveraging.

First, the school district identified a clear set of consequences. If the bond issue was not approved, $7 million earmarked by the state of Ohio to help build a new middle school would be offered to another school district and the current middle school building would be closed, forcing students to be housed in the district's other three buildings. Within two to three years the overcrowded conditions would require split instructional sessions and Olmsted residents would shoulder the full cost of renovating the high school.

If the incremental operating levy was not approved, $1.7 million worth of educational programs and services would have to be reduced or eliminated during three phases over an 18month period. The anticipated reductions and cutbacks were specific and included the number of students affected.

Rather than employ more conventional leveraging strategies, Olmsted school officials presented clearly identified consequences for failing to pass the levies. Instead of threatening interscholastic athletics or bus transportation to mobilize certain segments of the community, the district chose to be forthright, giving the community a full picture of what would be done and why.

* Full staff participation.

District staff helped to define the consequences, and three months of internal background briefings were held to talk about them before going to the public.

Numerous conversations occurred between the superintendent and teachers, classified staff, and other administrators. In these conversations, the consequences were explained and staff concerns were discussed. This proved vital when public discussions began because when citizens asked their friends who worked for the school district "what was really going on," the responses helped reinforce the public message of the school district.