1

David J. Erickson

College Name, Grand Canyon University

EAD-510: Educational Finance

Dr. Angela Smith

August 17, 2022

 2

Part 1: Description of Stakeholders & Why Information is Needed

Along with faculty, staff members, and—potentially—administration should have a role,

I believe families of our students, community members and tax payers, and district-level

employees could all be part of the survey process as well. It is stressed within our administration

courses that we allow our community members to have a voice and a working relationship with

ourselves and our school. As such, with public education, our public deserves the right to know

what is going on and how the money is budgeted within our schools and how the district is

monitoring the spending.

According to Sorenson & Goldsmith, “[l]eaders must foster the crafting of a clear school

vision, one resonating with all stakeholders” (The Principal’s Guide to School Budgeting, 2018,

p. 96). They both continue to demonstrate a step-by-step process of relating the stakeholders

within the budget and educational goals to determine what those goals may be. However, the

first point that must be done is to establish who the stakeholders will be. Through the community

as a whole being a part of this survey, valuable data would be collected. A valuable piece of data

that may potentially be gathered are the qualitative responses. For example, though the survey is

geared toward staff members, at the end of the survey, an opportunity for general feedback to the

administration is provided (Erickson, School Budgetary Needs Survey, 2022). Quantitative data

points are easily identifiable, for one could simply look at percentage results. However, the

qualitative data of how the students may reach the goals, the different strategies and success

teachers may have and are able to share with others, or even the potential struggles all share the

qualitative quality of the emotional connection to the students, the effect on those involved, and

the eventual goals.

 3

Lastly, communication must be clear. A strong and well-thought budget comes from “a

communications network between faculty and staff, [and] increasing faculty awareness of the

institution’s goals and objectives” (Brown, 2012, p. 44). Although Brown may be focusing on

higher education, the same advice applies toward secondary education. Lack of communication

creates miscommunication. If staff members aren’t informed with how the budget is divvied up,

they run the risk of being unprepared, and it would be at the hands of the administration as the

educational leaders. Furthermore, this communication extends to the stakeholders at the district

office level. The district-level employees can use the survey to determine which subject needs

more resources. With this data point, additional expenses may be added to the budget in order to

meet the goals of the school S.I.P.

Overall, the school—and principal specifically—is responsible for the budget. However,

without communication, a proper assessment of data points, and feedback from all potential

stakeholders, an action plan cannot be completed. As Sorenson & Goldsmith state, the action

plan cannot be static, for it is a living document that must always be able to be adapted (The

Principal’s Guide to School Budgeting, 2018, p. 108).

Part 2: School Budgetary Needs Assessment Survey

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/

1FAIpQLSeZNzErEpOeAZAr45sPh7gsGJaWOUoV_ZfNkXVb3y2lU7MvVw/viewform
 4

References

Brown, Cindy. (2012). Application of the Balanced Scorecard in Higher Education:

Opportunities and Challenges. Society for College and University Planning (SCUP).

Erickson, David. 2022. School Budgetary Needs Survey.

Sorenson, R. D., & Goldsmith, L. M. (2018). The principal's guide to school budgeting (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. ISBN-13: 9781506389455