Doctor of Education / Department of Educational Leadership / David C. Thompson / The purpose of this study was to analyze opinions of selected school district stakeholders regarding potentially critical factors in school bond referendum success and failure in Kansas during the years 2004-2007. Of the 72 eligible school districts, one district was randomly selected from each of six groups formed through a stratified random sampling process utilizing district enrollment (small, medium, large) and bond election result (successful, unsuccessful). Four purposefully selected respondents from each district participated in a mixed methods strategy of inquiry that included completing a 32-item written survey and participating in a personal interview. The survey served as the standardized data collection instrument. Survey data were used to augment and expand upon understanding of the bond referendum process gained from the personal interviews by examining respondents‟ perceptions of how important campaign strategies were, or would have been, in influencing election results. Frequency distributions were constructed in an attempt to identify relationships between variables identified as important to bond election success. Cross-tabulations and Pearson's chi-square were the statistical treatments chosen to further analyze the survey data. During the interviews, participants were asked a set of standard questions as well as questions unique to their role in the election process. The questions were designed to elicit in-depth responses about factors critical to the bond's success or failure and to gather useful advice for other districts preparing for a bond election. Interviews were used to discover new data, further develop existing data, and assist in organizing all data sources to construct a "story" describing bond election experiences in Kansas. The study findings indicate that unsuccessful districts utilize more campaign strategies and perceive them to be more important than successful districts, but that successful districts are more in tune with patrons. As each district is unique, it was found that strategies that were successful in one district might not be in another. Three factors found to be critical included: having unanimous school board support for the bond referendum, developing an on-going public relations strategy with patrons, and communicating the elements of a bond referendum to all patrons in simple, clear, and honest language.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the capital project financing methods of Texas community college districts, including an analysis of successful general obligation bond elections. A two-phase research approach was used in this analysis. The first part of the research investigation surveyed 65 community college executives and administrators representing 50 community college districts in Texas. College leaders were asked to participate in an online survey regarding finance methods used to fund capital projects. This included leaders who have participated in general obligation bond referendums on their college campuses. Thirty-four out of 65 leaders responded to the survey, which resulted in a 52.3% response rate. The second part of the investigation disaggregated survey response information from district college leaders into two groups: Those who finance capital projects utilizing general obligation bonds (GO bond) and those who use other methods than general obligation bonds to fund capital improvements or renovations. A cross-sectional study was conducted during the second phase, which investigated 12 community college district leaders’ processes and strategies of passing general obligation bond elections from 1998 to 2008. As a follow-up to the survey instrument, 11 interviews were conducted from GO and non-GO bond community college districts. The results from the findings led to the following conclusions. Each community college district is unique in how capital projects are funded. The commonalities that existed among survey participants and the personal interviews conducted were establishing strong community relationships prior to the planning of bond campaigns. The data reinforced the basic premise of building key relationships with civic/business leaders early on in the process. The importance of creating an environment that focuses on open communication and trust in support of the college was a determining factor for winning bond elections. The recommendations that emerged from this study were community college leaders must begin a dialogue to share best practices in capital project funding. Secondly, community college leaders must advocate for an organized system of data collection to record general obligation bond elections from their state agencies. Lastly, an organization for capital project advocacy must be created. / text

The purpose of this study was to determine the community power structure and its influence on the outcome of bond elections in four selected school districts in the State of Texas. The investigation of the following subproblems was necessary: 1. To determine the involvement of power structure in the decision-making process of the school district. 2. To determine the community people who have exercised the greatest influence in school matters. 3. To determine the educator's need to become cognizant of the nature of power structure. 4. To determine to what extent leaders in school bond elections are also leaders in non-school issues.

The purpose of the study was to examine the failed bond attempt of the Community School District and investigate reasons for the failure. Specifically, the role of the superintendent, the opposition, the media, and the school board during the bond election process were examined to determine how their roles influenced the outcome of the election. This qualitative case study employed purposeful sampling. Data collection techniques included document analysis, audiovisual material analysis, and personal interviews. Participants included media representatives, community members who were opposed to the bond election, members of the bond election committee, members of the board of trustees at the time of the election, and the district superintendent. Findings of the study included a description of how the superintendent’s work prior to the election and his role as spokesperson during the election contributed to its failure. In addition, the efforts of organized opposition had a significantly negative impact on the outcome of the election. The bond opposition used the media to create controversy strong enough to overpower what proved to be positive media relations. Finally, school board support must be unanimous and strong enough that board members are willing to work publicly in support of the bond election. Recommendations include: (a) The superintendent must conduct a needs assessment that includes the opinions of the community, (b) committee membership must be representative of the community, (c) the superintendent must not be the primary spokesperson for the bond election, (d) the community must be involved in the formulation and support of the bond proposal, (e) key members of the community must be willing to publicly support the bond election, (f) committees created to support and promote the election must be publicly active, (g) exercise caution as controversy can be created in the media that will overpower positive support, (h) respond positively to negative media as failure to respond to negative publicity can leave voters in a cloud of doubt, (i) members of the school board must publicly support a bond election, and (j) efforts by bond election supporters must be stronger than those opposing it.