The coming statewide debate over repealing Ohio’s SB-5 will pose a classic challenge for school leadership.

In 2030, I can imagine a Ph.D. candidate might be asked:

Suppose it is 2011 and you are the Superintendent of Schools for a prosperous Ohio suburb. What is your public stand on the referendum to repeal SB-5? Explain.

This morning, I met with Dr. Jim Schoenlein, Superintendent of Kettering Schools. I appreciate the fact that Dr. Schoenlein always is open to discussion. I didn’t press him to make a public stand on SB-5 — yes or no — but I thought it was telling that he pointed out that SB-5 isn’t just about teachers, it is also about police and fireman.  I took his comment to mean a superintendent who might advocate for the repeal of SB-5 could emphasize his or her solidarity with public servants in general, not simply solidarity with teachers.

This picture of Dr. Schoenlein in his office was taken last August.

The campaign to repeal SB-5 poses this dilemma for Ohio’s school superintendents:

• SB-5 gives management a lot more control. I reminded Dr. Schoenlein of his disagreement with the teachers’ union about the start of school date and pointed out that under SB-5, he would not be required to negotiate such issues.
• Teachers and a strong constituency in the district want to repeal SB-5. Another equally strong group of Kettering voters seeks to retain SB-5.  But, regardless of the outcome of the SB-5 repeal effort, both groups will be asked to vote for endless future school tax levies. In Kettering, on the November ballot, along with the SB-5 referendum, voters will be asked to renew a small ( .6 mill property tax with effective rate of .458860 mills) permanent improvement levy for Kettering Schools. And, next May, 2012, Kettering voters will be asked to support the renewal of a 4.9 mill school property tax.

On the one hand, a superintendent might seek the repeal of SB-5, because, regardless if SB-5 wins or loses, the superintendent needs to maintain a good relationship with the teachers and staff. On the other hand, how can a superintendent reject an opportunity to save the district money?  How can a superintendent reject an opportunity to have the authority to fundamentally restructure the local system of public education?

How a superintendent chooses to respond to SB-5, and why it will remain a classic dilemma worthy of study in 2030, is that how a superintendent responds to SB-5 reveals whether a superintendent sees his or her role as that of a manager, or that of a leader.

Public education for these many years has been structured according to an industrial model — bureaucratic, hierarchical.  Typically in such systems, those rising to positions of leadership are, in fact, so acclimated to bureaucratic thinking that they see their role as manager, team player, not as leader.

Leadership should lift up a vision of the future that inspires and unites. If school management had freedom to organize a better system, what would that system look like? What is the system that would nurture and motivate greatness in teachers and their students?  My pitch to Dr. Schoenlein this morning was that this SB-5 situation creates a great opportunity to engage the public in a meaningful discussion about the central issues of public education, a meaningful discussion about the future of public education.  Democracy is strengthened via an informed and engaged public. I said that, if we agree with David Matthews that the quality of public education is directly correlated with the quality of a community’s democracy, then, it follows, encouraging democracy within their community should be a strategy of the leadership of every school district.

I’m thinking that there is a public who is waiting to be invited to meaningfully participate in a vitalized democracy.  For Ohio’s School Superintendents, The Repeal Of SB-5 Creates A Classic Leadership Challenge.

See:

• Does Ohio’s Low Standard For School “Excellence” Hinder Authentic School Improvement?; February 8th, 2011
• Ohio’s SB5 Provides The Greenspace Required For System Transformation — Needed: Profound Knowledge; March 4th, 2011

My friend, John, who is my age, 63, recently told me that he could count only two and one-half accomplishments in his life. Waa.

If the growth of virtue is linear, 2.5 units of virtue at age 63 can be expected to grow to 3.49 units of virtue by age 88. But if the growth of virtue is exponential, as shown in this graph, 2.5 units of virtue at age 63 will grow to 80 units by age 88.

I prepared this graph as an encouragement. Based on the wishful idea that under ideal conditions the growth of virtue can be exponential, if I assume that John’s virtue doubles every five years, I can figure if John has 2.5 units of virtue at age 63, then he had only .02 (two hundredths) units of virtue at age 28, .01 at age 23, etc.  The good news is, if my estimate is correct, because of the power of exponential growth, by age 88, John will have over 80 units of virtue.  Wow.  When I last checked only 75 units of virtue are needed for sainthood.

According to Ray Kurzweil, “The Singularity Is Near,” humanity is now at the elbow of an exponential curve. We are on the brink of an stunning transformation of technology and science. After eons of evolution, humanity is at the point of an incredible explosion of accomplishment.

Kurzweil says that it took evolution about one billion years to develop DNA, but after DNA, progress was much faster. Evolution is exponential, as every stage of evolution builds on the previous stage. Finally, after billions of years of evolution, a J. S. Bach or an A. Einstein appears.  According to Kurzweil, by 2045 — just a flicker of time into the future — computers will be billions of times more intelligent than the most intelligent of humans. Billions.

Kurzweil offers a breathtaking vision of the future. But, he doesn’t deal with this crucial question:  Will humanity’s growth of virtue keep up with humanity’s stunning increases in scientific power?

Past human behavior predicts that, rather than being used to create a prosperous and peaceful world where everyone benefits, there is a good chance that humanity’s enormous new powers will be grabbed by a ruling oligarchy and used to suppress and control the masses.

Kurzweil shows that we are on the cusp of an incredible increase in the power of knowledge so that humanity, if we so choose, can create a heaven on earth. We can have a world in which every human enjoys prosperity, health, and happiness. The problem is, to a great degree, such a world is possible here today — 2011 — if we used the power and potential available for good, rather than war or  oppression.  It hardly seems reasonable that by the year 2045 humans will have sufficient virtue, sufficient humility to use that new power with wisdom.

What should our educational and political system look like — if the human race is to have a chance to deal with the challenges soon to be pressing upon us? What are the conditions that will allow the wisest and the best of us to emerge as leaders?

The hope for the future is not so much that technology can be transformed, but that humans can be transformed. Kurzweil predicts that the 100 years of the 21st century will have 20,000 years of scientific and technological progress.  How will the virtue of humanity ever keep up?  What Is The Educational System That Would Empower An Explosion Of Virtue?

See:

• “When Computers Are Billions Of Times More Intelligent Than Humans — What Should Be The Aims Of Education?”
• The Rise Of The Oligarchy — How The U.S. Became a Country “Of The Rich, By The Rich, For The Rich”

The showdown over the federal budget is not a debate about money, it is a over our national character, a debate about how we see ourselves. I like the scene from “The Lion King” when the voice booms down the great advice, “Remember Who You Are.”

The right wing urges us to return to original values.  At their rallies, usually, a few of their members are dressed up in colonial costumes.  The right wing points out that the founding fathers wanted a limited democracy, a small government, a society that favored the wealthy and calls for Americans to agree with this 200 year old point of view.

The right wing urges us to remember who we are. Progressives should embrace that challenge and claim the founding fathers as their own. Progressives, too, could have rallies where they dress up in colonial outfits. After all, the founding fathers, in the context of their time, were bold progressives, willing to risk everything to change the world of their day.

The message of today’s progressives should be that our national character is not to look backward. It is central to our national character to keep pressing forward. The constitution is a living document adding over the years progressive amendments such as giving the government the right to impose an income tax and giving women the right to vote.

Our history is one of expanding democracy. What separates progressives from the right wing is a marked different view of democracy. The progressive view is that we move towards greater “liberty and justice for all” via vitalizing our democracy. The right wing, however, fears democracy and seeks to suppress it — even as the founding fathers did.

The debate over the budget, as many Washington conflicts, is a phony debate. The fix is in. It’s a fixed fight, because our government has been purchased, and the owners are calling the tunes. It’s a fixed fight because our democracy is a faint shadow of what it should be. The real  debate is over competing visions of America’s character. The battle, at heart, is over democracy. Progressives should frame the debate as a debate over national identity — over remembering who we are.