Power — David Okafor

I want formal authority to improve how a group of public schools receives and uses a defined set of resources, without making fairness depend on my title, relationships, or private judgment.

• The scope of my authority, budget, and accountability is written and understood.
• Schools can see the allocation criteria, request support, and challenge a decision through a real appeal route.
• At least one important resource decision changes because the process surfaces need more accurately.
• My own school remains stable and does not pay for my wider influence through neglect.

I’m a 41-year-old public-school principal in the Upper Midwest. I know the operational reality of staffing, attendance, transport, family support, and restricted funding, and colleagues already ask me to solve cross-school problems informally. I do not control district budgets, and informal influence can disappear or become unfair when nobody can see how a decision was made.

By June 2028, I want formal, bounded authority over a clearly defined district resource portfolio serving eight public schools. I want to use that authority to make allocation more responsive to student need while leaving behind criteria, records, appeal routes, and shared capability that do not depend on my personal access. Power, for me, is the legitimate ability to change conditions and be answerable for the result—not proximity to senior leaders or the ability to win favors privately.

• A written charter names the decisions I can make, the resources in scope, the budget boundary, the people affected, the limits of my discretion, and who can review or remove the mandate.
• All participating schools can understand the allocation criteria, submit a request without personal access to me, see the reason for a decision, and use a documented appeal or reconsideration route.
• Within the pilot, at least one material allocation changes because verified student or school need becomes visible through the process rather than because a leader argued most effectively.
• The district publishes an understandable account of what was allocated, to whom, for what stated reason, and what remains unknown, while protecting student and staff privacy.
• People with less status—including family-facing staff and leaders of smaller schools—can influence the process without retaliation.
• My home school remains within its agreed operating and student-support boundaries during the pilot, and an identified colleague can run the process without me for four consecutive weeks.

I’m a 41-year-old principal at a public middle school in the Upper Midwest. During six years in the role, my team has improved attendance and reduced midyear teacher vacancies. I understand school operations, union relationships, family trust, restricted grants, and the distance between a district decision and a student’s day. Principals from nearby schools already call me when a shared problem has no clear owner.

That experience gives me credibility, but not authority. I can convene people and persuade a director; I cannot commit district funds, require a transparent process, or protect a good decision after leadership changes. Informal access also creates a risk: schools with the strongest relationships can be heard first, even when other schools have greater need.

I am married, have responsibilities at home, and will not pursue district influence by allowing my own school to drift. I can devote one protected half-day each week to a pilot if the superintendent and my school leadership team formally approve the coverage. Student records, personnel information, collective-bargaining obligations, procurement rules, and restricted-fund requirements must be respected. I will not promise a result before I know which decisions are legally and operationally delegable, and I will not use confidential stories as rhetorical leverage.

I will seek a time-bounded mandate to design and run a four-school pilot for one narrow resource portfolio, such as attendance-support capacity or substitute coverage. The route is deliberately smaller than a new district title. It can show whether I can exercise formal authority fairly, whether the district will supply the required data and budget, and whether a transparent process improves decisions before anyone expands the scope. The pilot must include published criteria, affected-school input, documented reasons, an appeal mechanism, and a named district sponsor who remains accountable.